# The German heroes who helped Allies against Hitler



## v2 (Oct 5, 2007)

He was born Claus Ascher in Berlin in 1922. His patriotic father had fought for Germany in the First World War. His blonde mother 'couldn't have been more Aryan if she tried'. When the Second World War broke out, Ascher, then 18, was quick to volunteer.
But he was not fighting for Hitler. His name was now Colin Anson and he was a Royal Marines commando who swore allegiance to king and country. It was the same for Horst Herzberg, now Bill Howard; Ignaz Schwarz, now Eric Sanders; and Helmut Rosettenstein, now Harry Rossney.

They were among more than 10,000 Germans and Austrians who fled Nazi persecution, took refuge in British territories and volunteered to join the struggle against Hitler. These 'enemy aliens', as they were known, became soldiers, sailors and airmen, took part in operations behind enemy lines, carried out vital intelligence work and participated in the D-Day landings. In every case their objective was the defeat of their own country to rid the world of fascism.

More than 60 years later, the veterans, many Jewish or considered 'degenerate' in Hitler's Germany, will come together this week for their first reunion. More than 100 will gather at the Imperial War Museum in Lambeth, south London, to be welcomed by Field Marshal Lord Bramall, former chief of the general Staff, at a private event to mark their contribution to the allied victory. The meeting coincides with publication of a book, The King's Most Loyal Enemy Aliens, which reveals many of the veterans' remarkable stories for the first time.
'The war had broken out and we felt it was our affair as much as anyone else's,' recalled Anson, now 85 and speaking in a crisp English accent. 'We were very aware of the generosity and compassion of Britain. We owed a debt to this country for saving our lives. I wasn't opposed to Germany, but I certainly was interested in fighting the Nazis.'

Anson's father was a German First World War veteran who was disillusioned by Hitler's rise to power. He was identified as a political subversive, interned at Dachau concentration camp and murdered in 1937. Anson escaped to Britain just before his 17th birthday, although his mother was unable to follow him. In 1940 he volunteered for the armed forces, joining the only unit open to the refugees - many of whom were in internment camps - the non-combatant Pioneer Corps, known as 'the king's most loyal enemy aliens'.

Many took English names. Anson said: 'My old name began with an A and, when I had to choose a new one, an Avro Anson twin-engine flew over, so I thought right, I'll have that.'

In 1942 the enemy aliens were allowed to enlist in fighting units, and Anson was eventually attached to 40 Royal Marine Commando. During the invasion of Sicily his assault ship came under attack from German bombers.

'There were a lot of casualties and I was knocked out by the blast,' he recalled. 'I asked for bandages and the medical sergeant told me to sit against the wall and not move. Boats came alongside to evacuate the wounded and I was among the last. I thought it was because my injuries weren't serious, but I later learnt it was because they didn't expect me to last the night.'

Shrapnel remains embedded in his skull. After the war he was reunited with his mother in Frankfurt and brought her to live in Britain. In 1951 Anson married Alice Gross, a refugee from Vienna who had joined the British war effort, working in the photographic section of Bomber Command HQ at High Wycombe, Buckinghamshire. She will also travel from their home in Watford, Hertfordshire, to attend the reunion.

Helen Fry, the book's author, estimates that 85 to 90 per cent of the Germans and Austrians who fought for Britain were Jewish - many lost family members in the Holocaust - with the remainder consisting of anti-Nazis and the 'degenerate artists'. She said: 'They knew what Britain was up against. Some had come out of concentration camps and they were determined to liberate Europe.

'They all say they felt German first, not Jewish. This is the paradox: they found themselves fighting on the other side. But once they had the army uniform they were determined to be British. The general public don't realise their contribution. Some of those I interviewed for the book haven't even told their families about it. The nation should be grateful to these silent heroes.'

The risks were high: Germans caught behind enemy lines were tortured and executed as traitors. Many of those who survived helped rebuild their homelands and hunt for Nazi war criminals before settling in Britain for good. They included Sir Ken Adam, the only German fighter pilot in the RAF, who became a production designer on more than 70 films, including seven James Bonds; Lord Claus Moser, former chairman of the Royal Opera House; Martin Freud, the eldest son of Sigmund Freud, who worked as a lawyer; and John Langford, who was Churchill's bodyguard.

The man who caught Britain's most notorious traitor was also German. Geoffrey Perry, born Horst Pinschewer to Jewish parents in Berlin, was a British army intelligence officer when he apprehended William Joyce, the propagandist 'Lord Haw Haw'. Perry, who witnessed fighting in Normandy and the horrors of Belsen concentration camp, said that, despite his nationality, he had met no hostility from fellow soldiers.

'The uniform was a common denominator. Whether you were born in Manchester or Berlin then was of little importance. They knew what you did for the army.' He added: 'The army changed my name for me. At 85, I have Perry grandchildren and my other name is long gone. If you asked my grandchildren I don't think they'd be able to spell it.'

source: The Guardian


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 5, 2007)

Good post. Thanks for sharing. There is a good movie about Rosettenstein I believe. I think I saw it a while back.


----------



## Seawitch (Oct 6, 2007)

Can I ask who the 'Degenerate Artists' were?
Just never heard of this group before, thats all.
I know Hitler was a failed one, any link?


----------



## v2 (Oct 6, 2007)

Seawitch said:


> Can I ask who the 'Degenerate Artists' were?
> Just never heard of this group before, thats all.
> I know Hitler was a failed one, any link?




Google


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 6, 2007)

Hitler was a failed Artist but he was not a "Degenerate Artist".

Degenerate Artists were Artists and Entertainers who were deemed Un-German by the Nazi Party. There works were confiscated and they were sanctioned.

Later they were branded Enemies of the State.

From Wiki:

_"Avant-garde German artists were now branded both enemies of the state and a threat to German culture. Many went into exile. Max Beckmann fled to Amsterdam on the opening day of the entartete Kunst exhibit.[28] Max Ernst emigrated to America with the assistance of Peggy Guggenheim. Ernst Ludwig Kirchner committed suicide in Switzerland in 1938. Paul Klee spent his years in exile in Switzerland, yet was unable to obtain Swiss citizenship because of his status as a degenerate artist.

Other artists remained in internal exile. Otto Dix retreated to the countryside to paint unpeopled landscapes in a meticulous style that would not provoke the authorities.[29] The Reichskulturkammer forbade artists such as Edgar Ende and Emil Nolde from purchasing painting materials. Those who remained in Germany were forbidden to work at universities and were subject to surprise raids by the Gestapo in order to ensure that they were not violating the ban on producing artwork; Nolde secretly carried on painting, but using only watercolors (so as not to be betrayed by the telltale odor of oil paint). Although no artists were put to death because of their work, those of Jewish descent who did not escape from Germany in time were sent to concentration camps.[30]

After the exhibit, paintings were sorted out for sale and sold in Switzerland at auction; some pieces were acquired by museums, others by private collectors. Nazi officials took many for their private use: for example, Hermann Goering took fourteen valuable pieces, including a van Gogh and a Cezanne. In March, 1939, the Berlin Fire Brigade burned approximately 4000 works which had little value on the international market."_


Jankel Adler 
Ernst Barlach 
Rudolf Bauer 
Philipp Baunecht 
Otto Baum 
Willi Baumeister 
Herbert Bayer 
Max Beckmann 
Rudolf Belling 
Paul Bindel 
Theo Brün 
Max Burchartz 
Fritz Burger-Mühlfeld 
Paul Camenisch 
Heinrich Campendonk 
Karl Caspar 
Maria Caspar-Filser 
Pol Cassel 
Marc Chagall 
Lovis Corinth 
Heinrich Maria Davringhausen 
Walter Dexel 
Johannes Diesner 
Otto Dix 
Hans Christoph Drexel 
Johannes Driesch 
Heinrich Eberhard 
Max Ernst 
Hans Feibusch 
Lyonel Feininger 
Conrad Felixmüller 
Otto Freundlich 
Xaver Fuhr 
Ludwig Gies 
Werner Gilles 
Otto Gleichmann 
Rudolph Grossmann 
George Grosz 
Hans Grundig 
Rudolf Haizmann 
Raoul Hausmann 
Guido Hebert 
Erich Heckel 
Wilhelm Heckrott 
Jacoba van Heemskerck 
Hans Siebert von Heister 
Oswald Herzog 
Werner Heuser 
Heinrich Hoerle 
Karl Hofer 
Eugen Hoffmann 
Johannes Itten 
Alexej von Jawlensky 
Eric Johanson 
Hans Jürgen Kallmann 
Wassily Kandinsky 
Hanns Katz 
Ernst Ludwig Kirchner 
Paul Klee 
Cesar Klein 
Paul Kleinschmidt 
Oskar Kokoschka 
Otto Lange 
Wilhelm Lehmbruck 
El Lissitzky 
Oskar Lüthy 
Franz Marc 
Gerhard Marcks 
Ewald Mataré 
Ludwig Meidner 
Jean Metzinger 
Constantin von Mitschke-Collande 
Laszlo Moholy-Nagy 
Margarethe (Marg) Moll 
Oskar Moll 
Johannes Molzahn 
Piet Mondrian 
Georg Muche 
Otto Mueller 
Erich(?) Nagel 
Heinrich Nauen 
Ernst Wilhelm Nay 
Karel Niestrath 
Emil Nolde 
Otto Pankok 
Max Pechstein 
Max Peiffer-Watenphul 
Hans Purrmann 
Max Rauh 
Hans Richter 
Emy Röder 
Christian Rohlfs 
Edwin Scharff 
Oskar Schlemmer 
Rudolf Schlichter 
Karl Schmidt-Rottluff 
Werner Scholz 
Lothar Schreyer 
Otto Schubert 
Kurt Schwitters 
Lasar Segall 
Friedrich Skade 
Friedrich (Fritz) Stuckenberg 
Paul Thalheimer 
Johannes Tietz 
Arnold Topp 
Friedrich Vordemberge-Gildewart 
Karl Völker 
Christoph Voll 
William Wauer 
Gert Heinrich Wollheim


----------



## Udet (Oct 6, 2007)

Do i read "who helped Allies against Hitler"? Cute and clever. Helping the allies "against Hitler" implies helping the allies against Germany...going a bit further it implies having played against their own land and people...or in less cooked words: they betrayed their nation, their people.

So those Germans who served Germany -which should be the most natural condition during a war, that is you are most likely to wear the uniform of the army of the nation you are a citizen- get neither respect nor credit for their sacrifices, while those who betrayed their nation are called "heroes". You have to be a Canaris to be awarded honors.

What a vomitive view.

So the heros say that if they would become POWs they would be tortured and most likely shot? No kidding! Do you recall the hunting unleashed at the end of the war in most of the once occupied nations of Europe? Anyone who collaborated with German occupation forces and authorities was subjected to quite brutal treatment.

Also these type of stories from people like these German "heroes" who were outside Germany during the war and/or served in the ranks of allied armies against Germany affirming "we knew what the allies were up against" should be taken with a grain salt; these ordinary citizens, many of them very young by the time, were likely to have no bloody clue of what the global situation of the war really was. These people have simply adjusted their opinions throughout the years, so their views conform to the politically correctness of present times.


----------



## Ghostdancer (Oct 6, 2007)

Haven't heard of these people, but it's not surprising. Good posting.

Which reminds me, wasn't there more than one attempt to depose Hitler? Even before the war?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 6, 2007)

Udet said:


> Do i read "who helped Allies against Hitler"? Cute and clever. Helping the allies "against Hitler" implies helping the allies against Germany...going a bit further it implies having played against their own land and people...or in less cooked words: they betrayed their nation, their people.
> 
> So those Germans who served Germany -which should be the most natural condition during a war, that is you are most likely to wear the uniform of the army of the nation you are a citizen- get neither respect nor credit for their sacrifices, while those who betrayed their nation are called "heroes". You have to be a Canaris to be awarded honors.
> 
> ...



Udet you read to much into things sometimes.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 6, 2007)

Ghostdancer said:


> Haven't heard of these people, but it's not surprising. Good posting.
> 
> Which reminds me, wasn't there more than one attempt to depose Hitler? Even before the war?



There were actually many plots, some of them dating back to 1938.


----------



## Ghostdancer (Oct 6, 2007)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> There were actually many plots, some of them dating back to 1938.



From those who saw the writing on the wall and knew where Germany was headed.


----------



## Nonskimmer (Oct 6, 2007)

Good post, v2. Very interesting.


----------



## ccheese (Oct 6, 2007)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> There were actually many plots, some of them dating back to 1938.



Probably the best known attempt on Hitler’s life came in March of 1943. Hitler had landed in his personal FW-200 at Smolensk and was taken to the headquarters of Field Marshal Guenther von Kluge. During the meeting, General Henning von Tresckow (Chief of Staff to Kluge) approached Col. Heinz Brandt, a member of Hitler’s entourage and casually asked him if he would be good enough to take along a small parcel containing two bottles of liquer for Gen. Helmuth Stieff in Berlin. Brandt readily agreed . The package contained a bomb.

When Hitler boarded the aircraft, the bomb was activated and set to explode in thirty minutes.

Three hours later, a message reached Kluge announcing Hitler’s safe arrival. Fortunately The “package” was retrieved before anyone got suspicious.

Later is was found that Hitler’s pilot had run into some clouds and turbulence and, to spare Hitler any discomfort, had taken the aircraft to a higher altitude. The temperature in the baggage compartment, where Brandt had put the package, had dropped rapidly, freezing the acid fuse.

Charles


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 7, 2007)

Talk about dumb luck.


----------



## Konigstiger205 (Oct 7, 2007)

I've read a book about Hitler's life and in it were many failed attempts to assassinate him and to be honest that guy had an incredible luck and if he would have been so lucky in the war problems we would all be speaking German right now...


----------



## Seawitch (Oct 8, 2007)

v2 said:


> Google


OK...I have and I discovered, but i was most concerned I might see things my Mother wouldn't allow!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 9, 2007)

Seawitch said:


> OK...I have and I discovered, but i was most concerned I might see things my Mother wouldn't allow!



Doing a search on this topic?


----------



## ccheese (Oct 9, 2007)

Udet said:


> So those Germans who served Germany -which should be the most natural condition during a war, that is you are most likely to wear the uniform of the army of the nation you are a citizen- get neither respect nor credit for their sacrifices, while those who betrayed their nation are called "heroes". You have to be a Canaris to be awarded honors.




There were quite a few German Army and Navy officers who were members
of the "Schwartz Kapelle" who, at first, planned to overthrow Hitler and then
sue for peace, but later actually tried to asassinate him. FDR threw a
monkey wrench into their plans when he came up with the phrase:
Unconditional Surrender. The Schwartz Kapelle actually tried to save
Germany from the Nazis.

Adm Canaris was, in fact a member of the Schwartz Kapelle... he also
had several direct lines to Britain through the Vatican and through the Swiss
Embassy.

Charles


----------



## Udet (Oct 9, 2007)

Cheddar Cheese:

And what has that got to do with the fact Canaris too was betraying his own nation?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 10, 2007)

Trying to overthrow Hitler was not betraying your own nation. Take it from Germans today they would have loved it if they had succeeded.

Getting rid of Hitler would have saved Germany. 

Sorry Udet but as a German - American I will tell you your views on what you just said are way out there and very wrong.


----------



## Konigstiger205 (Oct 10, 2007)

I agree partially with Udet and Adler...trying to kill Hitler wasn't betrayal...in fact think what would have happened if Hitler would have been killed and it wouldn't have been any war (hopefully)...Germany would probably be in an even better shape than now and millions of people wouldn't have met misery, war, destruction and death...but killing your own countrymen is treason...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 10, 2007)

Konigstiger205 said:


> but killing your own countrymen is treason...



Not necessarily. Because of Hitlers complete disregard for human life and his desire to destroy Germany (He may not have seen it this way but that is what it comes down to) and the rest of Europe along with it, killing him would not have been an act of treason. There were eneogh people that would have stood by that person.


----------



## ccheese (Oct 10, 2007)

Adm Canaris and the group of the Schwarz Kapelle did not think of
themselves as traitors..... altho they full well knew the penalty if caught.
It was death by hanging. But, there were no gallows in Germany at the
time, so they came up with the "meat-hook" to hang people from. There
is even some speculation that Rommell was a member.... which is why his
suicide was billed as "died from wounds", and he was given a hero's funeral.
The members of the SK thought of themselves as patriots... there aim was
to save Germany from the tyrant.

Charles


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 10, 2007)

ccheese said:


> But, there were no gallows in Germany at the
> time, so they came up with the "meat-hook" to hang people from.



Huh??? Where did you learn this?




ccheese said:


> There
> is even some speculation that Rommell was a member.... which is why his
> suicide was billed as "died from wounds", and he was given a hero's funeral.



You might want to read up on this some more.

Rommel was accused of being apart of the plot to kill Hitler. He was given the choice of a Trial where he would be found guilty and his whole family would be "dealt" with or the choice of Suicide. He took suicide naturally to protect his family. Because Rommel was loved by the German people his death was officially announced as have occured because of the wounds he obtained in an air attack in Normandy and was given a state funeral.


----------



## The Basket (Oct 10, 2007)

From what I can remember there were no gallows in Berlin as the form of execution was the axe.
Although the meat hook hanging was a very nasty death indeed...slow strangulation.

All german servicemen swore personal allegiance to Hitler in an oath...so all who were against Hitler broke the oath.

My view is that a soldier gives his loyalty to the state and people...not a political figure. If the political figure is leading his people and country to disaster then I have no problem in going against the leader for the greater good. If a national killed the likes of Idi Amin or Saddam...he is not a traitor in my book.


----------



## Udet (Oct 10, 2007)

Well, everyone handles a personal field book with regard to defining treason...

I´ll mention one case that is widely known to the public: there was a moment during 1940 when Hitler offered peace to Good Guy Churchill, with hard evidence to support the authenticity of the offer (example: letting the BEF flee Dunkirk, saving it from either captivity or annihilation on the field), yet Churchill refused the offer...would this qualify as leading Great Britain to disaster since by the time it was the Germans keeping the upper hand?

Further, would then be valid to have British high ranking officers or government officials aiding the Germans -betraying Churchill-? They could well argue all they were trying to do is save England from the decisions a stupid, lunatic or unwise leader...

My approach to the notion is more universal and not personal; any high ranking officer in the military who aids a foreign government when a state of war exists is a traitor. The most modest private would like to have a moment with a countrymen known for having helped the enemy during a war.


----------



## Ghostdancer (Oct 10, 2007)

Much has been written about Irwin Rommel's role in the Hitler assassination attempt, but from what I can gather his role doesn't seem to be very clear if indeed he was involved or just had knowledge of the plot.


----------



## The Basket (Oct 10, 2007)

I've read many explanations for Dunkirk and Hitler being nice to the British is only a theory.

Churchill carried on fighting because it would be mean Hitler would be master of europe and he wasn't going to rule nice. To make peace to Hitler was to surrender to Hitler and I thank the lord that no British man would crawl to such a man and beg. Remember Munich? We made peace there and got war.


----------



## Maestro (Oct 10, 2007)

Udet said:


> I´ll mention one case that is widely known to the public: there was a moment during 1940 when Hitler offered peace to Good Guy Churchill, *with hard evidence to support the authenticity of the offer (example: letting the BEF flee Dunkirk*, saving it from either captivity or annihilation on the field), yet Churchill refused the offer...would this qualify as leading Great Britain to disaster since by the time it was the Germans keeping the upper hand?



I think you need to re-read about Dunkirk. Ever heard of the Le Paradis massacre ? I would hardly call that a "hard evidence to support the offer".

Read that. Get smarter :
Le Paradis massacre - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Or the Wormhoudt massacre ? Once again, educate yourself :
Wormhoudt massacre - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Also, our British folks can correct me if I'm wrong here, because my knowledge of pre-war Great-Britain is rather limited.

But wasn't Chamberlain (Churchill's predecessor) one of Hitler's fan ? And didn't he lose his elections to Churchill due to that fact ? If so we can say one thing : may be Churchill lost the elections *after* the war *because* of the war, but he was also elected *before* the war *for* war.


----------



## The Basket (Oct 11, 2007)

Chamberlin was never a fan of Hitler but trusted him. He would only realise later the truth.

Of course...in the UK there was support for Hitler from many sides.

If the UK made peace with Hitler then how long would it last? Hitler had a habit of breaking treaties when it suited.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 11, 2007)

Udet said:


> I´ll mention one case that is widely known to the public: there was a moment during 1940 when Hitler offered peace to Good Guy Churchill, with hard evidence to support the authenticity of the offer (example: letting the BEF flee Dunkirk, saving it from either captivity or annihilation on the field), yet Churchill refused the offer...would this qualify as leading Great Britain to disaster since by the time it was the Germans keeping the upper hand?



Churchill was right for not taking any peace offering from Hitler. Hitler was an evil mad man and he needed to be stopped.



Udet said:


> My approach to the notion is more universal and not personal; any high ranking officer in the military who aids a foreign government when a state of war exists is a traitor. The most modest private would like to have a moment with a countrymen known for having helped the enemy during a war.



Just my opinion but you are not looking at it in a rational way. Hitler was an evil mad man who was destroying Germany. In that way, no they were not traitors because they were doing it for the better good of Germany, and lets face it Hitler was not the best thing for Germany.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 11, 2007)

The Basket said:


> If the UK made peace with Hitler then how long would it last? Hitler had a habit of breaking treaties when it suited.



And like most treaties he made, this one would have been broken too in time, if it had happened. I personally dont think Hitler ever really wanted to make a peace treaty. If he had ideas for it, it was only because he realized he had bitten off more than he could chew when the plans for Russia were developing.


----------



## Njaco (Oct 11, 2007)

It sounds like Udet supports the claims made at Nuremberg that "I was only following orders!" Isn't it possible for a few to recognize evil and fight against it now matter where it comes from and however they can? Not everyone was a Nazi in Germany and believed in its position. Its like saying because our president is Republican everybody is.

I'm trying to remeber but I recall a group of students in Germany during the war called "The Rose" or something similar that actively (as best they could) protested against the government. They were caught and killed.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 11, 2007)

You are referring to the White Rose.

The White Rose was a student group led by there Proffesor from the Univeristy of Munich.

The group became famous for there leaflets they spread around Germany attempting to call the German people to rise against Hitler and his regime.

In 1943 6 of the members were captured and beheaded. Some of there leaflets were smuggled out into England and the RAF dropped the leaflets all over Germany retitled "The Manifesto of the Students of Munich." 

Below is a picture of Hans Scholl (left), Sophie Scholl (center), and Christoph Probst (right) in Munich in 1942.


----------



## Soundbreaker Welch? (Oct 11, 2007)

> The temperature in the baggage compartment, where Brandt had put the package, had dropped rapidly, freezing the acid fuse.


Bugger it. 

Udet, I respect German veterans, and many people on here do too. 



> but killing your own countrymen is treason...


Do you mean if you were a German that fled Germany and then went back and killed his country men? 

What about a German American? Born in America, but his parents lived in Germany perhaps. I'm sure the US Military had them. 

I know Japanese Americans fought agains't their homeland. I imagine they would have been seen as traitors by Japanese.

Should those Japanese and Germans, citizens of the US from birth, not have fought for the Allies and joined Axis?

For instance, Allied Germans couldn't kill Hitler, without killing their homeland people. For one they live now in a differant country. Only job they could take is a limited commando mission, parachuted behind German lines to kill Hitler. But that kind of job is rare. 

To kill Hitler was almost easier if you were a German citizen. Rommel probably was in the bomb plot to kill Hitler, but he was still a loyal German, and once Hitler was dead would still have fought for Germany.

A German who's a British Commando, after killing Hitler, can't suddenly join Germany's army and leave Britain, without being seen still as a Traitor. Maybe leaving the Allied Army is better, than hurting your homeland afterward, in that case? Though once Hitler died, the war might have ended soon. 

It's a hard question. I guess it's like if a British man was born in Germany and lived there all his life, or an American, and decided it was best to fight for Germany, since he felt more German than anything else.


----------



## Udet (Oct 11, 2007)

Soundbreaker:

Well, yours is a far more detailed issue; if some German was not living in Germany for whatever reason, and joined the army of the U.S.A. and served in combat against the Wehrmacht the situation seems understandable and valid if you will, for he would be wearing the uniform of the U.S. Army. 

I was focusing my view on those Germans serving in the German armed forces during the war, in German uniform and/or while in office as officials of the German government.

If we speak about Canaris...oh crap!! the Chief of the Abwehr!!!! How many lives of German civilians, soldiers and military equipment were either compromised or lost as direct consequence of his actions?

In my view there has not been nor there will be any type of punishment, penalty and torture proceedings that could make Canaris pay for his actions. Whatever was it that they did to Canaris it was not enough. (I have read 3 books focused on the Admiral).

A guy who was born in the U.S.A., raised there and who was living there, no matter the origin of his parents has an even easier choice in my view. Serve in the U.S. Army, and you will wear their uniform. 

It seems like you agree with me; those so called German heroes that helped the allies "against Hitler" would forcefully affect the German citizens they were allegedly trying to "rescue", which is perhaps the core of this issue.

Having people of foreign origins in armies ain´t new business. It is a concept as old as the world is.

People of so many different nationalities wore the German uniform in the war, including people from nations previously defeated by Germany. All those were considered traitors in their nations when the war ended; those russians who served in German uniform met a terrible fate when the Brits and USAers handed them over to the soviets.

What seems a bit intriguing is the fact it was precisely in the German army where most foreigners served during the war (in German uniform), including people from neutral states such as Spain and Sweden...also Belgians, French, , Danes, Dutch, Norwegians (*volunteers not conscripts*) and a large number from the three Baltic states. How would you explain this phenomena? 

Did foreigners volunteer in such numbers say for the U.S. Army during WW2?


----------



## Njaco (Oct 11, 2007)

Udet, I can understand some of your points but reality isn't always so rosy.

Are we to condemn Lt. Franz Stigler cause he didn't shoot down Capt. Brown and _Ye Olde Pub_ when he had a chance? And as far as foriegn volunteers, I know that some joined to escape. One Dane joined the Luftwaffe then stole a plane to fly to Switzerland to escape. You do what you do to survive. A blanket indictment is not fair. Each has his own story.


----------



## The Basket (Oct 11, 2007)

Any Norwegian who joined the German army was a traitor. His country was illegally occupied and ruled harshly and he joins in? No excuses. He is working against the best interests of his people and country...same for belgium and Denmark. Spain was an ally.

The Baltic states was first Stalins then Hitlers and they certainly had reason to fight the Soviets. Maybe they fought for their own reasons.

Don't know what Canaris did so can't comment.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 13, 2007)

Udet said:


> Soundbreaker:
> 
> Well, yours is a far more detailed issue; if some German was not living in Germany for whatever reason, and joined the army of the U.S.A. and served in combat against the Wehrmacht the situation seems understandable and valid if you will, for he would be wearing the uniform of the U.S. Army.
> 
> ...



Its funny Udet because the majority of these so called "Traitors" of Germany are revered as Heroes by the German people today. There are monuments set up for them. How do you explain this Udet?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 13, 2007)

The Basket said:


> Don't know what Canaris did so can't comment.



He took an active role against Hitler and his evil regime. He was not a traitor in the sense that Udet likes to portray him.

From Wiki:

_"After Adolf Hitler's rise to power in 1933, Canaris was made head of the Abwehr, Germany's official military intelligence agency, on January 1, 1935. Later that year, he was promoted to Rear Admiral. In the period 1935-36 he made contacts with Spain to organize a German spy network in Spain. His excellent Spanish made him the very man for the job. He was the moving force behind the decision that sided Germany with Francisco Franco during the Spanish Civil War, despite Hitler's initial hesitation to undertake such an adventure. In 1937 he was still a supporter of Hitler, considering him to be the only solution against communism and a hope for the revival of Germany as a nation. By 1938, however, he had realised Hitler's policies and plans would bring catastrophe to Germany and secretly began to work against the régime. His personal style as a gentleman could not tolerate the gangsterism of most of the Nazi party members. There is a letter that remained from a Spanish contact he had that confirms clearly his opinion against the Nazi regime. He tried to hinder Hitler's attempts to absorb Czechoslovakia and advised Franco not to permit German passage through Spain for the purposes of capturing Gibraltar. It has been written that all of Franco’s arguments on this stance were studied and dictated in detail by Canaris, while at the same time an important sum of money had been deposited by the British on Swiss accounts for Franco and his generals to further convince them to be neutral.[2]

He also became involved in two abortive plots to assassinate Hitler, first in 1938 and again in 1939. His most audacious attempt was in planning, with Ewald von Kleist-Schmenzin, to capture and eliminate Hitler and the entire Nazi party before the invasion of Austria. At this particular moment, von Kleist visited England secretly and discussed the situation with British MI6 and some high ranking politicians. There, the name of Canaris became widely known as the executive hand of von Kleist in the event of an anti-Nazi plot. The high ranking German military leaders believed that if Hitler invaded Austria, or any other country, then England would declare war on Germany. MI6 was of the same opinion. However, the British reaction to the eventual Austrian Anschluss (and Hitler's annexation of the Sudetenland) was more cautious. At a meeting with Hitler in Munich, British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain chose diplomacy over war. Munich was a severe disappointment for Kleist and Canaris. It represented an important boost to Hitler's international esteem for two reasons: one, he was able to play the part of a man of reason and compromise; and two, he could boast that his predictions that England would not respond with war had proven to be correct. It is said that Canaris, extremely shocked by this 'dishonest and stupid decision' (his own words), decided to be cautious and wait for a better time to act against Hitler. Nevertheless, it appears likely that MI6 maintained contact with Canaris even after the Munich Agreement. When Winston Churchill came to power, Canaris' hopes were renewed, given the new Prime Minister's strong position against Hitler.

In the meantime, Reinhard Heydrich, previously a naval cadet who had served under Canaris and was at the time the Sicherheitsdienst (SD) leader, despite being his protegé, friend and neighbour, became his rival. Presumably, the Canaris posting in Abwehr had the secret approval of the dynamic Heydrich who preferred him instead of his predecessor, Captain of the Navy Pfatz, who was not in line with the Nazi party members. Heydrich wanted a controllable Abwehr and was keeping a close eye on Canaris. Canaris appeared outwardly to side with his friend Heydrich, but only in order to give Abwehr a chance to grow and become a considerable force. In Bassett's account,[3] Canaris was deeply frustrated by a briefing by Hitler before the attack on Poland, about a series of exterminations that were ordered and Canaris was required to take notes on. These notes, the book confirms, were sent to MI6. After the outbreak of war between Germany and Poland in 1939, Canaris visited the front and witnessed examples of the war crimes committed by the SS Einsatzgruppen. Among these were the burning of the synagogue in Będzin and the fiery death of the town's Jewish residents. He also received reports from Abwehr agents about many other incidents of mass murder throughout Poland.

Shocked by these incidents, Canaris began working more actively, at increasing risk, to overthrow Hitler's régime, although he cooperated with the SD to create a decoy. This allowed him to pose as a trusted man for some time. He was promoted to full Admiral in January 1940. With his subordinate Erwin Lahousen, he established a circle of similarly-minded Wehrmacht officers, many of whom would be executed or forced to commit suicide after the failure of the July 20 Plot. It has been speculated that there was contact with British intelligence during this time, despite the war between the two countries. It is thought that during the invasion of Russia, Canaris received a detailed report of all the enemy positions that was known only to the British. The head of MI6, Stewart Menzies, who shared Canaris’s strong anti-communist beliefs, praised Canaris’s courage and bravery at the end of the war. Reinhard Heydrich and Heinrich Himmler, however, investigated in detail the sources of Canaris's information on Operation Barbarossa, arriving at the conclusion that there had indeed been contact between him and the British. After 1942, Canaris visited Spain frequently and was probably in contact with British agents from Gibraltar. In 1944, he also secretly met Allied agents in occupied France trying to find a way to end the war before the total collapse of his country.

During Heydrich's posting in Prague, a serious incident put him and Canaris in open conflict. A British agent - the Czech Paul Thümmel - was arrested by Heydrich, but Canaris intervened to save him, claiming he was a double agent actually working for Abwehr. Heydrich suspected that Thümmel was actually Canaris's MI6 contact. Heydrich requested that Canaris put the Abwehr under SD and SS control. Canaris appeared to retreat and handled the situation diplomatically, but there was no immediate effect on the Abwehr for the time being. In fact, Canaris had established another two links with the MI6 - one via Zurich, and the other via Spain and Gibraltar. It is also possible that Vatican contacts provided a third route to his British counterparts.

Canaris also intervened to save a number of victims of Nazi persecution, including hundreds of Jews. Many such people were given token training as Abwehr "agents" and then issued papers allowing them to leave Germany. One notable person he is said to have assisted was the then Lubavitcher Rebbe in Warsaw, Rabbi Yosef Yitzchok Schneersohn[4]. The assassination of Reinhard Heydrich in Prague, organized by MI6, was done in part to preserve Canaris in his important position.

Evidence of his connivances grew and at the insistence of Heinrich Himmler, who had suspected him for a long time, Hitler dismissed Canaris from the Abwehr in February 1944, replacing him with Walter Schellenberg and merging most of the Abwehr with the Sicherheitsdienst (SD). Some weeks later, Canaris was put under house arrest, preventing him from taking part directly in the July 20 Plot to assassinate Hitler. However, just after the Stalingrad disaster, Canaris had already designed a 'coup' against the entire Nazi regime in which many Nazi officials would be accused for known crimes, while Hitler would be arrested as an insane person based on his exposure to poison gas in World War I, then imprisoned for life. After the July 20 Plot, Canaris's long-time rival, SS leader Heinrich Himmler discovered that one of the officers involved in the plot, a friend of Canaris' who committed suicide, had kept the plot details in a metal box. It also became known during the investigations that a number of other assassination plots (possibly another 10 or 15) had been activated, but had failed and were covered up at the last minute. Most people who participated in these plots were people Canaris knew well. Himmler kept Canaris alive for some time because he planned to use him secretly as a future contact with the British in order to come to an agreement to end the war with himself as the leader of Germany. Hitler wanted him alive as well to be able to find more conspirators. When Himmler's plan failed to materialize, he received the approval of Hitler to send Canaris to an SS drumhead court-martial that sentenced him to death.

Together with his deputy General Hans Oster, military jurist General Karl Sack, theologian Rev. Dietrich Bonhoeffer and Ludwig Gehre, Canaris was humiliated and executed by slow strangulation at Flossenbürg concentration camp on April 9, 1945, a few weeks before the end of the war. At the time of his execution, Canaris had been decorated with the Iron Cross First and Second Class, the Silver German Cross, the Cross of Honor and the Wehrmacht's Twelve and Twenty-Five Year Long-Service Ribbons.

Erwin Lahousen and Hans Bernd Gisevius, two of Canaris' main subordinates, survived the war and testified during the Nuremberg Trials to Canaris' courage in opposing Hitler. Lahousen recalled a conversation between Canaris and General Wilhelm Keitel in which Canaris warned Keitel that the German military would be held responsible for the atrocities in Poland. Keitel responded that they had been ordered by Hitler. Keitel, who also survived the war, was found guilty of war crimes at Nuremburg and hanged."_


----------



## Udet (Oct 13, 2007)

Adler:

I know that; i have been to Germany so many times, so i can say i know quite well how these individuals are seen today within the majority of the German people.

I do not think i can let you know my opinions that would explain this phenomena, because you are a German yourself and i am completely sure you would not like my views, at all.


----------



## Maestro (Oct 14, 2007)

Udet, you seems to have answers to everything so I'll ask you a question...

In the Canadian Army, the rookies (non-commissionned and commissionned officers) have to take an oath. In this oath, they swear allegiance to the King/Queen but there is no mention of our country or our flag. So here is the question : if ever there was a war against England, who would be the traitor in your book ? The Canadian soldier fighting the British or the Canadian soldier fighting for the Queen against his homeland ?

Think about it... Of course the Queen isn't Hitler, but it was approximately the same thing for Germans during WWII.


----------



## Hop (Oct 14, 2007)

> I´ll mention one case that is widely known to the public: there was a moment during 1940 when Hitler offered peace to Good Guy Churchill, with hard evidence to support the authenticity of the offer (example: letting the BEF flee Dunkirk, saving it from either captivity or annihilation on the field)



I'd really like to see some evidence for this peace offer. As to "letting" the Dunkirk evacuation go ahead, the German army called a temporary halt to operations for perfectly valid reasons. They resumed attacks on the Dunkirk pocket a couple of days later.

And don't forget the role of the Luftwaffe. If Hitler was "letting" the British army escape, why did the Luftwaffe carry out so many attacks, and kill so many British soldiers? Were thousands of dead likely to impress Churchill with how nice a man Hitler was? Not just off Dunkirk either, at least 3,000, including over 1,000 civilians, were killed when the Luftwaffe sank the Lancastria off St Nazaire. 


Any German who worked against the Nazi regime was working for Germany, not against it. Don't forget, the Nazis murdered large numbers of Germans, too, apart from the millions of deaths they caused by starting the war. German Jews, disabled people, left wing political activists, homosexuals, in total between half and three quarters of a million Germans were murdered by their own government.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 14, 2007)

Udet said:


> I do not think i can let you know my opinions that would explain this phenomena, because you are a German yourself and i am completely sure you would not like my views, at all.



Because those views are wrong...

I am sorry but I have heard your views on the German people and fankly they are quite wrong and you dont know them as much as you think you do. You need to actually live among them to understand them. Visiting Germany and knowing a few people does not give you the whole picture.

And no it is not because of Allied Propaganda as you blame everything one...


----------



## Watanbe (Oct 17, 2007)

just reading above im hearing two major opinions going back and forth...Adlers and Udet's. I think that you both make a good point and are both correct. I believe that it works both ways.


----------



## Njaco (Oct 17, 2007)

Not so simple, Watanbe. I see the government of my beloved country involved in a major war, murdering its civilians and others, so I decide to work to change things.

I'm to be viewed as a Traitor and a Hero?


----------



## Watanbe (Oct 17, 2007)

well I think that it depends on the circumstances. I think some of those fighting for Britain should be treated as heroes and others shouldnt be so quickly branded as such...if they are so willing to flee and change to british identity to help opposition...they are traitors... I think it is different for people like Jews who had their country turn its back on them and treat them like absolute ****.


So i mean at the end of the day its how each individual interprets it.

"opinions are like asseholes everyone has one"


----------



## Udet (Oct 20, 2007)

Hop said:


> I'd really like to see some evidence for this peace offer. As to "letting" the Dunkirk evacuation go ahead, the German army called a temporary halt to operations for perfectly valid reasons. They resumed attacks on the Dunkirk pocket a couple of days later.
> 
> And don't forget the role of the Luftwaffe. If Hitler was "letting" the British army escape, why did the Luftwaffe carry out so many attacks, and kill so many British soldiers? Were thousands of dead likely to impress Churchill with how nice a man Hitler was? Not just off Dunkirk either, at least 3,000, including over 1,000 civilians, were killed when the Luftwaffe sank the Lancastria off St Nazaire.
> 
> ...



Yes, the Germans started the war, but they also tried to put an end to all military actions in the west as early as in 1940, right after France surrendered and -yes- the BEF was allowed to escape from Dunkerque.

This the leanest exampe of the allied state of denial...Dunkerque will now be portrayed as a German "inability" or "failure" to either crush or capture the BEF. I leave this matter to psychiatry.

That you, Hop, have issues accepting and recognizing Germany did offer peace to England has absolutely no effect on the facts.

This is one of the most repulsive issues of the war: at least in the west the war could have lasted...less than a year.

Politicians and their fateful decisions...Churchill was stupid. Germany posed no threat whatsoever against the interests of the British Empire, at least not in the short term, at all. Had Germany attained peace in the west, then they switch their firepower against the east, the main goal...had they won there, England would have had to deal with an even more super powerful Germany, just like they had to with the "ally" USSR during the Cold War. 

What happened with the Soviet Union during the Cold War? This business partner of the Brits and USAers plundered, deported and murdered way beyond Hitler´s wildest fantasies and estimations...the fact the Soviet Union, with its size, resources and geopolitical influence failed to attain anything like "submerging the world in opression and terror" should further illustrate German could have never come close to "opress the world" had it won the war...that is an argument many people say don´t they...that they fought Germany to secure liberty, democracy and human life right?

You are all saying that if Great Britain had accepted the German offer, Hitler would eventually reverse the deal; i can neither affirm nor deny this. We are talking about politicians; politicians have agendas. But in the short term the bulk of the German firepower would have been deployed and stationed in the east, with no resources enough to put Great Britain at "risk", could Hitler indeed believe the time to betray England had come.



Rather the REAL threat against the British Empire was gestating elsewhere, more specifically some 12,000 kilometers away from the British Islands, in TOKYO. Ever heard of the fall of Singapore in 1942? The devastating effects of such defeat were still being felt within the ranks of the British military well after the end of WW2.

Had Good Guy Churchill accepted German terms following the fall of France, then there is no U-boat campaign in the Atlantic...no frenzied calls to deploy almost the entire Home Fleet to pursue the Bismarck...oh crap! the dimensions of this pressure-relief event are hard to assess...one thing for sure though: the Royal Navy can now send a significant naval force to secure the Far East possessions, and not only the two ill-fated HMS Prince of Wales and HMS Repulse, which were sent to the bottom as fast and easy as a little child sinks his toy ships in a bucket of water in the backyard.

Even if waging war both in Europe and the Far East was beyond the means of the British Empire by the time, Churchill could have accepted Hitler´s terms for peace, and proceed to properly secure British colonies and military forces in the Far East to at least deter Japanese intentions on British possessions in the region.

Whatever the approach, Churchill fails the test; we have a rejected pupil; his obssession lied in the wrong place; where the real threat was he either did not know -which seems quite unlikely in view of the alleged "superb" British intelligence services which, as they put it, cracke and read absolutely everything coming from the German codes-, or if he did know his actions were wrong, failing to secure the interests of the Empire.

What of Japan´s reaction had Churchill accepted German terms for peace thus putting an end to the war in Europe? Would they still proceed to attack Pearl Harbor?

Churchill´s stupidity and mediocrity made a significant contribution to what would eventually become the dissolution of the British Empire in decades to come.

As it happens almost everywhere on earth, those national figures praised and adored, the heroes, the Ultimate Statesman, do not really deserve all that limelight and credit.

A same thing applies in the case of Hitler, right after the overwhelmingly crushing victories attained by the Wehrmacht during the first months of Barbarossa in the soviet union, the Führer should have then resorted to politics and dictate some terms to finish the war in that region, even if the outlined goals for the military operation had not yet been attained; the frightened political spheres in Moscow would have gladly accepted any terms to put an end to war in the east.

Hitler too was stupid there.

So if we consider these facts, it is not daring to affirm the war in Europe could have been terminated, say, in early 1942. The war could have lasted half its actual duration.

Politicians and their fateful decision which costed the lives of millions of soldiers and civilians.


----------



## Njaco (Oct 20, 2007)

> Politicians and their fateful decision which costed the lives of millions of soldiers and civilians.



That should probably go for every war. I remember someone saying an Army is just an extenstion of political policy (or something similar).


----------



## Maestro (Oct 21, 2007)

Yeah, and I think (but I'm not sure) that it was actually De Gaulle who said that. How ironic, eh ?


----------



## The Basket (Oct 21, 2007)

Dunkirk was a tactical failure for Hitler. But then again he could not expect the evacuation to have been so successful. Even the Royal Navy were not hopeful.

How many countries did Hitler invade? Did Hitler start the war? He wanted war and got it. So the question of war and peace is purely Hitlers. He invaded countries which were no threat to him. He invaded Belgium and Holland which were nuetral and he even signed a treaty with Belgium! Goering said that treaties were toilet paper. Even broke his treaty with Stalin when suited. 

Peace by terror. No thanks.


----------



## Njaco (Oct 21, 2007)

There are many reasons for war and if we talk WW II we must include Japan, Italy, etc. and not lay it all on Hitler. I am in now way supporting that lunatic but his hand wasn't the only one in the cookie jar.

What was Hitler's motivation besides his hatred? The Versailles Treaty? Then you would have to understand how that war started. The shots in Sarajevo were caused by what? (beside the gun).

Japan's expansionists plans. Caused by an inability to adjust as a civilized country? The embargoes from the US?

Threads of Cause are sometimes hard to follow.


----------



## Hop (Oct 21, 2007)

> Yes, the Germans started the war, but they also tried to put an end to all military actions in the west as early as in 1940, right after France surrendered



You mean after achieving their aims they offered a truce so they could pursue their aims in the east? Of course.

But that's not some magnanimous gesture, it's the Nazis looking for more profitable pickings elsewhere. 



> and -yes- the BEF was allowed to escape from Dunkerque.



Please, _some_ evidence for this. Just one shred.

The facts are von Runstead issued the halt order on the 23rd. Hitler learnt of it on the 24th, and with Goering promising to destroy the British army with air power, confirmed it. On the 26th the order was revoked, and the ground forces began attacks again. On the 28th Guderian told Kleist that his panzer divisions had only half their tank strength left and were in urgent need of time to reorganise. He also said that the marshy ground was unsuitable for tanks and the fighting would be better left to infantry.

Those are the facts. There was a brief pause in the offensive towards Dunkirk for purely military reasons, ordered first by the army, confirmed by Hitler. At the same time, the weight of the Luftwaffe was deployed against Dunkirk.

Don't blame political reasons for the failure of the Luftwaffe to carry out one of Goering's boasts, they proved quite capable of that in the BoB, at Stalingrad, over Germany, etc.



> This the leanest exampe of the allied state of denial...Dunkerque will now be portrayed as a German "inability" or "failure" to either crush or capture the BEF. I leave this matter to psychiatry.



Why not leave it to the historical record? Just some suggestion in original documents that the British were to be "allowed" to escape to facilitate a peace deal (which makes no sense anyway, because the British would be more likely to seek peace with the bulk of their army captured)



> That you, Hop, have issues accepting and recognizing Germany did offer peace to England has absolutely no effect on the facts.



Please, I am waiting to see a fact from you. Just one. Instead of your opinion stated as fact.



> This is one of the most repulsive issues of the war: at least in the west the war could have lasted...less than a year.



Repulsive? That the British continued fighting against the Nazis?

Let's be honest. Hitler wanted Britain to surrender so that he could invade Russia, murder millions of its people, and take the land and resources for the Aryan race.

I don't find the idea of stopping that _repulsive_.



> Politicians and their fateful decisions...Churchill was stupid. Germany posed no threat whatsoever against the interests of the British Empire, at least not in the short term, at all.



In the long term allowing a genocidal German regime to absorb most of Europe presented a major risk to Britain. Which is why they went to war over Poland in the first place.



> had they won there, England would have had to deal with an even more super powerful Germany, just like they had to with the "ally" USSR during the Cold War.



The difference was the Communists showed they were sane, the Nazis showed they were not.

The Communists, for all their bluster, never once launched a war against a major power. The Nazis, in a few short years, attacked almost all the major powers.



> What happened with the Soviet Union during the Cold War? This business partner of the Brits and USAers plundered, deported and murdered way beyond Hitler´s wildest fantasies and estimations



Um, no. 

Whilst their were many deaths and displaced in Europe in the immediate aftermath of the war (and how could ethnic Germans remain in Poland after the way Poles had been treated by Germans?), from 1948 to 1989 Communist rule in Europe was oppressive but nothing like genocidal. The number of people killed by the regimes was in the thousands, rather than millions killed by the Nazis in a much shorter time period.



> the fact the Soviet Union, with its size, resources and geopolitical influence failed to attain anything like "submerging the world in opression and terror" should further illustrate German could have never come close to "opress the world" had it won the war...that is an argument many people say don´t they...that they fought Germany to secure liberty, democracy and human life right?



The difference is the Communists never, ever, tried an all out attack against a world power. The Germans, if Britain had made peace with them, would at least have controlled all of continental Europe, leaving only a depleted Britain and the US to oppose them.

WW2 ended with Britain, France, most of Germany and the US opposing the Soviets. That's a much better balance.



> Even if waging war both in Europe and the Far East was beyond the means of the British Empire by the time, Churchill could have accepted Hitler´s terms for peace, and proceed to properly secure British colonies and military forces in the Far East to at least deter Japanese intentions on British possessions in the region.



Right. Adolf "I have no further territorial demands in Europe" Hitler signs a peace deal at Munich in 1938. In 1939 he invades Czechoslovakia. Then Poland. Then Denmark and Norway. Then France, Belgium and the Netherlands.

Then he signs another peace deal.

And the British will trust him so much they send all their forces to the far east?



> What of Japan´s reaction had Churchill accepted German terms for peace thus putting an end to the war in Europe? Would they still proceed to attack Pearl Harbor?



Considering the US would have been even less prepared in this fantasy world, probably yes. Remember, the US armaments industry wouldn't have had British billions to expand production. With no war in western Europe, US military production would have been at the level it was in the late 30s.

And Japan could have attacked just the US, and maybe the Dutch. No need to take on the British as well.



> Whatever the approach, Churchill fails the test; we have a rejected pupil;



Oh what a strange upside-down world you live in. The Germans the good guys, Churchill the bad guy. Churchill the fool who got it all wrong. 

For most people in the west, Churchill was right, because he helped bring down the Nazis. But in your world that was the wrong outcome, the world would be better if only the Nazis had won.



> Churchill´s stupidity and mediocrity made a significant contribution to what would eventually become the dissolution of the British Empire in decades to come.



The British Empire was dissolving anyway. Canada, New Zealand, Australia and South Africa had already become Dominions, meaning they were effectively independent. Ireland was independent. India was on the way to dominion status. 

That left only the bits that cost a lot of money to run, but with very little return.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 21, 2007)

Udet said:


> Yes, the Germans started the war, but they also tried to put an end to all military actions in the west as early as in 1940, right after France surrendered and -yes- the BEF was allowed to escape from Dunkerque.



Udet to think that Germany wanted peace with England for the sake of peace is very naive. Hitler may very well have wanted peace but only to gain an advantage for his real plans to invade Russia. In the end England would have been at war with Germany again...



Udet said:


> This the leanest exampe of the allied state of denial...Dunkerque will now be portrayed as a German "inability" or "failure" to either crush or capture the BEF. I leave this matter to psychiatry.



While I agree that Germany could have crushed the BEF at Dunkerque it was Hitlers stupidity that allowed them to escape... 

A simple fact that even the ground commanders on the front would agree with.



Udet said:


> That you, Hop, have issues accepting and recognizing Germany did offer peace to England has absolutely no effect on the facts.



That you look at Hitlers real intentions in a very skewed matter and a naive way has absolutely no effect on the facts.



Udet said:


> This is one of the most repulsive issues of the war: at least in the west the war could have lasted...less than a year.



Under what circumstances? If there had been peace in the west it would have been under:

1. An occupied France.
2. Germany enslaved by Hitler
3. More "Untermenschen" being killed
4. Later war with England

Why are you blind to the matter Udet? You make it seem as if Churchill was the big bad evil man for not accepting peace with Hitler. Would you have done so under such circumstances? 

Churchill did the right thing standing up to Hitler. Why make Hitler out to be anything more than what he was, Udet?



Udet said:


> Politicians and their fateful decisions...Churchill was stupid. Germany posed no threat whatsoever against the interests of the British Empire, at least not in the short term, at all. Had Germany attained peace in the west, then they switch their firepower against the east, the main goal...had they won there, England would have had to deal with an even more super powerful Germany, just like they had to with the "ally" USSR during the Cold War.



Read above Udet....

I am sorry but your views are very very skewed in a certain direction... 



Udet said:


> What happened with the Soviet Union during the Cold War? This business partner of the Brits and USAers plundered, deported and murdered way beyond Hitler´s wildest fantasies and estimations...the fact the Soviet Union, with its size, resources and geopolitical influence failed to attain anything like "submerging the world in opression and terror" should further illustrate German could have never come close to "opress the world" had it won the war...that is an argument many people say don´t they...that they fought Germany to secure liberty, democracy and human life right?



I will not even begin to respond to what you have said above. Your words speak for themselves.



Udet said:


> Rather the REAL threat against the British Empire was gestating elsewhere, more specifically some 12,000 kilometers away from the British Islands, in TOKYO. Ever heard of the fall of Singapore in 1942? The devastating effects of such defeat were still being felt within the ranks of the British military well after the end of WW2.



 



Udet said:


> Had Good Guy Churchill accepted German terms following the fall of France, then there is no U-boat campaign in the Atlantic...no frenzied calls to deploy almost the entire Home Fleet to pursue the Bismarck...oh crap! the dimensions of this pressure-relief event are hard to assess...one thing for sure though: the Royal Navy can now send a significant naval force to secure the Far East possessions, and not only the two ill-fated HMS Prince of Wales and HMS Repulse, which were sent to the bottom as fast and easy as a little child sinks his toy ships in a bucket of water in the backyard.



And still have an Evil mad man with intentions of owning all of Europe in slavory in the name of the German Reich right at your backdoor as little as 50 to 100km from your shoreline.

Yeah that sounds real nice Udet...





Udet said:


> Whatever the approach, Churchill fails the test;



 

You fail to realize one thing Udet. Churchill was on the winning side. He did not fail...



Udet said:


> What of Japan´s reaction had Churchill accepted German terms for peace thus putting an end to the war in Europe? Would they still proceed to attack Pearl Harbor?



Again Udet. Your views are skewed. What kind of peace in Europe would it have been. England could not stand there and let Germany do what it was doing. 

Hitler was the starter of the war. He was the one that was conquering other countries and illegally occupying them. Churchill was not doing this. I think it is very very stupid to try and put Hitler on a higher level than Churchill. I really wonder about you sometimes Udet...



Udet said:


> Churchill´s stupidity and mediocrity made a significant contribution to what would eventually become the dissolution of the British Empire in decades to come.



And Hitlers Destroyed Germany...


----------



## Kurfürst (Oct 21, 2007)

Not wanting to take sides in this wonderful discussion, however some factual errors need to be corrected. 



Hop said:


> Those are the facts. There was a brief pause in the offensive towards Dunkirk for purely military reasons, ordered first by the army, confirmed by Hitler. At the same time, the weight of the Luftwaffe was deployed against Dunkirk.
> 
> Don't blame political reasons for the failure of the Luftwaffe to carry out one of Goering's boasts, they proved quite capable of that in the BoB, at Stalingrad, over Germany, etc.



The Germans, of course, were right in their decision to leave the small, and relatively small British Exp. Forces to the LW. For the Germans, the goal was to neutralize the BEF _and ensure it could no longer interfere with the rest of the French campaign_. France, the traditional continental power next to Germany, was the only one capable of posing a threat to the Germans; Britain was not. And this goal could be either achieved if :

a, the BEF flee back to Britiain with all their equipment left in Britain, at minimum loss with the LW taking it`s toll on them, or 
b, by engaging the Brits and destroying them on a poor terrain in a costly _Kasselschlacht_, which may endanger the follow-up operations against the French. 

Since the main opposition was from the French, and the French army was still very much intact and numerous even after the catastrophe in the North - the outcome was not yet certain. Risking the iron fist of the _Wehrmacht_, the _Panzers_ on poor terrain seemed as foolish back then as it is now.

As for the Luftwaffe, it did sent iirc some 10 000 troops, 250 ships and 50 warships (10 destroyers amongst them) to Davy Jones` locker attempting to flee, as well as giving a giving a bloody nose to the RAF at the same time.

_'Where is the RAF'_ was the common saying amongst _Tommies_, hiding in foxholes on the beaches. Failure of the Luftwaffe over Dunkeque, I don`t think so. The LW basically fullfilled it`s mission goal, it gave a beating to the retreating Brits and hurt them considerably. The RAF was supposed to prevent this - it did not.

I can`t blame Goering for giving promises either, it was a rather realistic exception that the LW would gradually wear down the British who were cornered with the sea at their back; certainly he did not expect this happened in a few days that was actually available, to round up 2-300 000 men. Nobody expected such a quick evacuation by sea, not even the British.

Details of Dunkerque can be debated, but the outcome is rather obvious. The BEF (and Britain for the remainder of the Battle) was neutralised; Germans conserved their forces for the final thrust against the French that knocked France out of the war; the RAF was defeated over Dunkerque both in tactical and strategic sense; RN and MN had considerable permanent and temporarily losses in warships.



Hop said:


> Repulsive? That the British continued fighting against the Nazis?
> 
> Let's be honest. Hitler wanted Britain to surrender so that he could invade Russia, murder millions of its people, and take the land and resources for the Aryan race.
> 
> I don't find the idea of stopping that _repulsive_.



Let`s be honest. Britain was fighting Germany because it was concerned that with a rising German power on the continent, Britain may no longer be in a position to keep the huge mass of land it invaded, murdered millions of its people, and the land it took and secured it`s resources for the British race. 

Exactly the same reasons for the British fighting WW1.

Moral considerations, pity for the USSR that Churchill so eagerly wanted to destroy not so long ago played no part. It`s one funny idea that _the largest colonial Empire on the world_ had _moral_ issues with oppression and genocide. Their issues were very much political.



Hop said:


> In the long term allowing a genocidal German regime to absorb most of Europe presented a major risk to Britain. Which is why they went to war over Poland in the first place.



... if that was truely the reasoning, I find it odd that Britiain did not go to war with the USSR that invaded Poland - which itself was a military dictatorship at the time, with harsh policies towards it`s ethnic minorities and running it`s own concentration camps for ethnic and political prisoners - the same year, or in 1945 when they occupied Poland and put a puppet goverment in it`s place.

Truth is, they were only concerned that a rising genocidal German regime would be a too tough competition to the genocidal British regime in colonizing and oppressing third world countries.

Outdated their thinking may seen, it should not be forgotten that British leaders came from a social background that was openly racist, and made it`s living from their investments and properties of the colonised countries of Asia and Africa. This kinda explains why they got on so well with the Nazis in the 1930, they shared certain similiar ideologies and hatred. 



Hop said:


> The difference was the Communists showed they were sane, the Nazis showed they were not.
> 
> The Communists, for all their bluster, never once launched a war against a major power. The Nazis, in a few short years, attacked almost all the major powers.



Uhm, I think you need a major history lesson I think. It certainly won`t make the Nazis look any better, but at least it will correct some petty revisionism.

Britain declared war on Germany on 3 September 1939, and then refused all offers of peace.

France declared war on Germany on 3 September 1939, and refused all offers of peace in 1940, which meant they choose that the conclusion was left to the military, which in the end did not favour France and forced it to surrender.

USSR, first broke the agreement it made earlier with the Germans in July 1940, then declared in November 1940 that it will move against - despite former agreements defining 'interest zones' - and occupy against Finnland, Rumania, Bulgaria and Turkey etc., despite all of these were strategically vital for the Germans because of their resources (Finnland sent nickel, Turkey chrome, Rumania oil iirc).

USA, not much to say, it supported Germany`s enemies with arms, and then openly waged war on the seas against Germany from the spring of 1941 onwards.

Hitler started the war on Poland with very limited goals on his mind - namely, knocking out Poland which was hostile to Germany (and the USSR, too) even before Hitler came to power and which even tried to forge a military allience with France to overrun the Germans. Poland after WW1 misunderstood it`s possibilities and under the military dictatorship that run the country and oppressed both ethnic German and Ukrainian minorities, it seeked to achieve some sort of 'Great Power' status in the region.

Hitler seeked to remove this threat, but he mis-calculated the reaction of the West. After 1st September 1939, Hitler was no longer in control of the events, he kept reacting to the events as they unfolded, and raced with the clock - _for some time,_ successfully, as he was undoubtfully very successfull and kept winning.

As for Communist being better than Nazis, you, unlike some here, have no experience with _either_. 



Hop said:


> Whilst their were many deaths and displaced in Europe in the immediate aftermath of the war (and how could ethnic Germans remain in Poland after the way Poles had been treated by Germans?),



I was a bit shocked when I've read this. Mass deportation is OK.  Then I wonder, what problems could you have with the Nazis at all...? You seem to adore the same ideology as they did, ie. collective guilt, extreme punishment, and pretending it`s all normal.



Hop said:


> from 1948 to 1989 Communist rule in Europe was oppressive but nothing like genocidal. The number of people killed by the regimes was in the thousands, rather than millions killed by the Nazis in a much shorter time period.



This latter statement of yours puts you in the same bag as David Irving and other notorious Holocaust deniers IMHO. Only that you`re an apologist for communism, and a denier of the 100 million victims Communism demanded in the last 80 years. 

Holodomor - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation: Honor the Victims of Communism and Those Who Love Liberty
Pol Pot - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Hop said:


> The difference is the Communists never, ever, tried an all out attack against a world power.



This may have something to do with Nukes, rather than the benevolent and peaceful nature of communism.


----------



## Kurfürst (Oct 21, 2007)

Hop said:


> The Germans, if Britain had made peace with them, would at least have controlled all of continental Europe, leaving only a depleted Britain and the US to oppose them.



... it`s difficult question wheter the fact Britain remained in war after 1940 changed anything at all. It could not challange Germany much on the continent, neither it diverted too many German resources from the Eastern Front. Most likely, the Eastern Front would follow the same path with Britain 'out'.



> WW2 ended with Britain, France, most of Germany and the US opposing the Soviets. That's a much better balance.



Certainly from the POV of those who ended up on the Western side of the Iron Curtain..



Hop said:


> Right. Adolf "I have no further territorial demands in Europe" Hitler signs a peace deal at Munich in 1938. In 1939 he invades Czechoslovakia. Then Poland. Then Denmark and Norway. Then France, Belgium and the Netherlands.
> 
> Then he signs another peace deal.
> 
> And the British will trust him so much they send all their forces to the far east?



I can`t comment on British strategical moves, but to me it`s seem that the 'British desire' to stay in the war was as much as rooted in the fact that Britain at the time was lead by Churchill, who spent his life as a war-mongerer and trying to prove (though with rather opposite results) his qualities as a 'warlord'. He liked to pose in uniforms of services he never served with. In short, he was taking the opportunity to fullfill his personal ambitions.His personal desire or a war that _he_ could lead, combined with his racists beliefs was an important part of why Britain remained at war.

Now as for the factual errors. Czecho_slovakia_ was not invaded, only the Czech parts - historically speaking, traditional part of the Reich BTW, and regardless of our modern views on this, the date back then was 1939! with 20 years of a mixed state where Czechs were ruling over ethic minorities, predominantly Germans and Slovakians, after some 900 years being spent on the blossom of the _Reich_. The point I am making that while today we take self-governing of a nation as granted, the 1920s and 1930s were a rather different enviroment, the final chapter of imperialism, if you like. The Slovaks were OTOH very happy about having their own, independent country in which they no longer governed and overshadowed by Prague.

Poland was already discussed. Given the way Polish internal and external polics went in 1920s and 1930s, challenging both Russia and Germany.. and fooling themselves about their own capabilities (the Polish military fully believed in 1939 that they will soon marchin g in Berlin, and that the great moment has come..), it they writing their own fate, basically. Much have been written how the Poles were treated by the Germans and subsequently, the Russians. Much less about how the Poles treated Germans and Russians/Ukrainians in the two decades before WW2. Suffice to say, Poland was running concentration camps for ethnic minorities.

Denmark and Norway are odd examples, since the whole occupation of the Norway was a German reaction to Franco-British plans put forward by Churchill in September 1939 to the War Cabinet to occupy Norway and deny the Germans of Swedish ore transports, and which were initiated the same time the Germans set in motion their own counter-plan.
Decision To Invade Norway and Denmark

I find it odd. The British seeked to overrun and occupy a neutral country, they failed and now they blame it on the ones who thwarted their plans..

As for France, it`s again odd since France declared war on Germany.. and a result was beaten in battle and occupied. If you declalre war on a country and then it defeats you, you can`t blame anyone else but yourself I guess.



Hop said:


> Oh what a strange upside-down world you live in. The Germans the good guys, Churchill the bad guy. Churchill the fool who got it all wrong.



Any POV that thinks in 'good guys' vs. 'bad guys' is oversimplified, thus fundanmentally flawed and thus wrong - though I tend to agree with Churchill being a fool who got it all wrong. Britain could certainly do with someone smarter, and with more sense of reality than this pompous fool.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 21, 2007)

Sorry Kurfurst but I just find it hard to justify what the Nazis did and were planning to do. To basically say they were forced into war is wrong. True the treaty that ended WW1 pretty much secured what would cause WW2 and I believe that WW2 really was just a continuation of hostilities after a lengthy pause.

It just seems to me that some people are trying to put the Germans onto the side that could do no wrong and it was the allies that got it all wrong. Saying that Churchill should have made Peace with Germany is all wrong in my opinion.

The Nazis were an evil dictator led power that wanted to rule everyone under there thumb. That could not be allowed.

There is no way to church it up...


----------



## Kurfürst (Oct 21, 2007)

I am not aiming to justify anything they did, I think I tried to express this clearly when I wrote : 'It certainly won`t make the Nazis look any better...'

What I was writing about is that the strategic initiative for them was pretty much gone after Britain and France declared war on Germany. Could they resort to other means than war in 1939? Probably, it was inbranded to the nazi leaders to seek war a tool. Was the responsibility solely theirs? No. And after Poland, they were reacting to moves made by Allies - in a very agressive manner, as per Prussian military traditions, rooted in the poor geostrategic position the country has, it`s the only correct answer if the country is threatened. Same as in WW1, one can point to finger in one direction, but it`s a silly nonsense. It takes two to dance.

My point being that history is seldom black and white, and there`s hardly much moral justification of politics, ever. The only rule that motivates politics is _interest_.

IMHO the studying of history is important because it helps us to understand the effect of cause and effect. Black and White stories are never true, and if one wants to properly understand the causes of WW2, one better searches for the reason on both sides. And one better search deep - the spark that set the powder keg alight o 1st September 1939 did not appear from no-where. It has it`s roots in Versailles, Nazi Rallies, communist rallies, colonisation, the frustration and rising, boundless nationalism in Eastern Europe after the downfall of the Habsburg Empire, leaving a huge political vacuum after itself. The causes are many. I don`t buy the victim and victimizer dualism, either.


----------



## Marcel (Oct 21, 2007)

Udet said:


> Yes, the Germans started the war, but they also tried to put an end to all military actions in the west as early as in 1940, right after France surrendered and -yes- the BEF was allowed to escape from Dunkerque.
> 
> This the leanest exampe of the allied state of denial...Dunkerque will now be portrayed as a German "inability" or "failure" to either crush or capture the BEF. I leave this matter to psychiatry.
> 
> ...



Living in a country that still could've been occupied by Nazi's then, I find this point of view rather clinical and ignorant. Although maybe not immediately intended, Churcill's "stupidity" saved me and milions of other Europeans to be still repressed by one of the most evil regimes in the world. You should read a little more about live in occupied countries during WWII before claiming it would have saved milions of lives if the UK and Nazi germany would have made great friends early!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 21, 2007)

Marcel said:


> Living in a country that still could've been occupied by Nazi's then, I find this point of view rather clinical and ignorant. Although maybe not immediately intended, Churcill's "stupidity" saved me and milions of other Europeans to be still repressed by one of the most evil regimes in the world. You should read a little more about live in occupied countries during WWII before claiming it would have saved milions of lives if the UK and Nazi germany would have made great friends early!




I think that is the point that is lost here.


----------



## bigZ (Oct 21, 2007)

" This morning the British Ambassador in Berlin handed the German Government a final note stating that, unless we heard from them by 11 o'clock that they were prepared at once to withdraw their troops from Poland, a state of war would exist between us. I have to tell you now that no such undertaking has been received, and that consequently this country is at war with Germany.

You can imagine what a bitter blow it is to me that all my long struggle to win peace has failed. Yet I cannot believe that there is anything more, or anything different, that I could have done, and that would have been more successful... We have a clear conscience, we have done all that any country could do to establish peace, but a situation in which no word given by Germany's ruler could be trusted, and no people or country could feel themselves safe, had become intolerable... Now may God bless you all and may He defend the right. For it is evil things that we shall be fighting against, brute force, bad faith, injustice, oppression, and persecution. And against them I am certain that the right will prevail."

The shame of the Munich Agreement and the broken promises would ensure that the British would never again trust Hitler.


----------



## The Basket (Oct 21, 2007)

Don't understand the thinking Kurfurst.

The RAF was tactically and strategically defeated at dunkirk? 

The Royal Navy suffered permenent losses? 

The Slovaks were happy to be ruled by a Nazi puppet government? 

Why did both Halder and Brauchitsch oppose Hitler stopping the tanks and why did the tanks attack Dunkirk a few days later when they realised the evacuation was happening?

The Luftwaffe failed in its objective to destroy the BEF or stop the evacuation.


----------



## Marcel (Oct 22, 2007)

Kurfürst said:


> Denmark and Norway are odd examples, since the whole occupation of the Norway was a German reaction to Franco-British plans put forward by Churchill in September 1939 to the War Cabinet to occupy Norway and deny the Germans of Swedish ore transports, and which were initiated the same time the Germans set in motion their own counter-plan.
> Decision To Invade Norway and Denmark
> 
> I find it odd. The British seeked to overrun and occupy a neutral country, they failed and now they blame it on the ones who thwarted their plans..



It is odd, 'cause it's not true. The British planed to land in Norway in an attempt to help the Finns. This with knowledge and cooperation of the Norway government. The Norwegian were (rightfully so) concerned about their neurtral status and made an official complaint to the UK government. This and the Finn's surrender made that the plan was definately off in march 1940. Nevertheless, the Nazi's saw this as an easy excuse to invade Norway in April and used as thus.


----------



## Kurfürst (Oct 22, 2007)

Marcel said:


> It is odd, 'cause it's not true. The British planed to land in Norway in an attempt to help the Finns. This with knowledge and cooperation of the Norway government.



So they wanted to land _in Norway_ to help _the Finns_...  

The Franco-British plan was to use the Finnish war as an excuse to occupy Norway and cut Germany away from Baltic trade. It first wanted to use the Russo-Finnish war as pretext, then it aimed to abuse Norwegian neutrality by mining Norwegian waters, in hope to provoke the Germans and then, 'react'.

_Qui bono?_ Who benefits? For the Germans, Scandinavian neutrality was a perfect state, since they were interested in maintaining trade with these countries to obtain important strategic resources and products. The Allies were interested in breaking that trade route.

The whole story can be read in detail here :
Decision To Invade Norway and Denmark



> The Norwegian were (rightfully so) concerned about their neurtral status and made an official complaint to the UK government. This and the Finn's surrender made that the plan was definately off in march 1940.
> 
> Nevertheless, the Nazi's saw this as an easy excuse to invade Norway in April and used as thus.



'the plan was definately off in march 1940' :

_...The signing of the peace treaty between Russia and Finland in Moscow on the night of 12 March put an end to the Allied plans. *The Germans observed British submarines concentrated off the Skagerrak on the 13th, and an intercepted radio message setting March as the deadline for preparation of transport groups indicated that the Allied operation was getting under way.* But another message, intercepted on the 15th, ordering the submarines to disperse revealed that the peace had disrupted the Allied plan. ...

.. Although Hitler was probably in large part influenced by his gambler's instinct and his disinclination to abandon an operation once it had been prepared and he thought it could be carried off successfully, he was more nearly right in his estimate of Allied intentions than he knew. *On 21 March Paul Reynaud became the head of a French Government committed to a more aggressive prosecution of the war; and a week later, at a meeting of the Supreme War Council, the Scandinavian question again came under consideration. The new Scandinavian undertaking was to consist of two separate but related operations, WILFRED and Plan R 4. WILFRED involved the laying of two mine fields in Norwegian waters, one in the approaches to the Vest Fjord north of Bodo, and the other between Ĺlesund and Bergen, with the pretended laying of a third near Molde. It was to be justified by notes delivered to Norway and Sweden several days in advance protesting the inability of those nations to protect their neutrality. The supposition was that WILFRED would provoke German counteraction, and Plan R 4 was to become effective the moment the Germans landed in Norway "or showed they intended to do so." Narvik and the railroad to the Swedish frontier formed the principal objectives of Plan R 4. *The port was to be occupied by one infantry brigade and an antiaircraft battery, with the total strength to be built up eventually to 18,000 men. One battalion, in a transport escorted by two cruisers, was to sail within a few hours after the mines had been laid. Five battalions were to be employed in occupying Trondheim and Bergen and in a raid on Stavanger to destroy Sola airfield, the largest in Norway and the closest to the British Isles. The plan depended heavily on the assumption that the Norwegians would not offer resistance; and, strangely, the possibility of a strong German reaction was left almost entirely out of account. [41] 
_


----------



## Kurfürst (Oct 22, 2007)

The Basket said:


> Don't understand the thinking Kurfurst.
> 
> The RAF was tactically and strategically defeated at dunkirk?
> 
> The Royal Navy suffered permenent losses?



Just check the losses. IIRC something like 1/3 of the British fighters were lost at over Dunkerque, and despite being equally matched in number of sorties, and outnumbering Luftwaffe fighter sorties greatly (the LW had both bomber and fighter sorties, the RAF only fighter sorties), they suffered twice the loss. 

Strategically, they were incapable of stopping any Luftwaffe air attack which lead to heavy losses amongst the troops and warships.



The Basket said:


> The Slovaks were happy to be ruled by a Nazi puppet government?



It was _their own_ Nazi goverment, after all. So much so that there was a wide opposition to Tiso's death sentence after 1945, which makes me believe he was very much accepted by Slovaks as some kind of national hero. And looking at current Slovak everyday politics, I don`t see they have any problem living under a goverment that is difficult to tell wheter it`s just ultra-nationalist or nazi even today. 



> Why did both Halder and Brauchitsch oppose Hitler stopping the tanks and why did the tanks attack Dunkirk a few days later when they realised the evacuation was happening?
> 
> The Luftwaffe failed in its objective to destroy the BEF or stop the evacuation.



It wasn`t Hitler who stopped the tanks, but the generals - already discussed. And, I fail to see how the Luftwaffe would fail it`s objective. After all, the unsupported claim was that Goering said to 'leave the job to the _Luftwaffe_'. If the _Heer_ (the German land forces) resumed operations against the Dunkerque _Kassel_ just a few days later, how can it be blamed on Luftwaffe anymore..? It was appearantly no longer the Luftwaffe`s job to mop up Dunkerque Which is difficult to believe to ever been a seriously considered by professional soldiers, _nobody_ would believe at the time that a 300 000-men force can be destroyed just by airforce... most likely the idea originates from Britain, to make a victory out of Dunkerque. I`ve never quite understood the British attitude towards Dunkerque. But, the Brits tend to think quite different than us, poor continentals. 8)


----------



## The Basket (Oct 22, 2007)

I am sure Kurfurst you are familiar with Franz Halder the General staff chief.

In his diary about Dunkirk...he writes...that the armour has been stopped in its tracks by a direct order of the Fuehrer! Finishing off the the encircled enemy army is to be left to the Air Force!

At Nuremberg...Halder meets both Milch and Kesselring and talks about Dunkirk. The Luftwaffe officers declared that Goering had said to Hitler that if the war was won by the army then the generals could claim victory and that the Fuerhers prestige would be damaged beyond repair. Goering stated that only a joint Luftwaffe/Army could prevent such a thing.

Another Halder quote....'the pocket would have been closed at the coast if only our armour had not been held back. The bad weather has grounded the Luftwaffe and we must now watch thousands of enemy get away to England under our very noses.' The bad weather bit is important.

Therefore Goerings arrogance and Hitlers ignorance against the wishes of both Halder and Brauchitsch believed that Dunkirk could be wiped out by the Luftwaffe.

Also Dowding had to be led kicking and screaming to give ANY fighter cover for Dunkirk as he believed that he needed every fighter for the next battle so he only sent the minimum he could get away with.

Dunkirk is not a victory for the Brits but it could have been the death of the British army and so the evacuation allows us to fight another day.

Military objective is the key...


----------



## Marcel (Oct 22, 2007)

Kurfürst said:


> So they wanted to land _in Norway_ to help _the Finns_...
> 
> The Franco-British plan was to use the Finnish war as an excuse to occupy Norway and cut Germany away from Baltic trade. It first wanted to use the Russo-Finnish war as pretext, then it aimed to abuse Norwegian neutrality by mining Norwegian waters, in hope to provoke the Germans and then, 'react'.
> 
> ...



Kurfurst, think of the following: British landing was aproved on februari the 5th. However, according toe Raeder, Hitler already ordered his suppreme Command to prepare for operations agains Norway on December the 14th, quite ahead of the british schedule. So to say the germans invaded Norway as a reaction on British operations is not valid here. Further more, the Norway waters were mined only one day (April 8th) before the Germans invaded. Too quick a reaction, don't you think? In fact, Hitler signed the order for attack on April the 1th, a week before the mining.

The reason for landing at Norway in orther to aid the Finns is not as ridiculous as it might seem to you. Under great pressure of the public in the UK, the British government decided to aid the Finns. Do you know any way to get there without coming to close to either the USSR or Germany then trough Norway?

You said the Germans didn't have any other reason to occupy Norway than to counter Allied plans. Let us not forget that although Germany started first with an assault on the west (so much for Hitler garantying neutrality) Lebensraum and an assault on Russia was his biggest priority. Therefore he needed Norway to controll Russian traiding routes. So he had ever reason to attack Norway, appart from possible allied thread. And for Hitler's position against neutral agreements, see the assault on The Netherlands an Belgium.


----------



## Udet (Oct 22, 2007)

Rumors of denial make the rounds.

I will not bother that very much with Hop´s views affirming the soviets showed they were sane.

The problem i see here is that my comments -which are based on a few years of reading, speaking and hearing- disrupt the coherence of the Allied case they were fighting an evil regime that sought the annihilation of millions of human beings. Darkness, slavery, terror and a long etcetera.

Accepting the fact Hitler indeed sought peace with Great Britain during the first half of 1940 would come to disrupt the enchanting tunes of the vast catalog of Allied songs telling us of how they saved the world of this alleged terror.

As far as i know, there has been no official ceremony where the nations of the world would gather to thank the Allied Powers for saving them from Nazi Germany. Ungrateful bastards.

I apologize for this, but i will definitely have issues when confronted with this views _"we had to do anything, at all costs, to stop this evil regime"_, when as a direct business partner you had the Soviet Union, a regime that a good time before the war had developed a vast resume in issues such as terror, repression, deportation, plundering and murder...what of the artificial famines in the Ukraine? What do you call that? Hop is going to respond that is not genocide for sure. While some Nazi actions were indeed genocidal, there is a problem when you fail to acknowledge the practices of one of your dear war associates.

You were aiding, supporting and nurturing a regime which indeed posed a direct, immediate threat to British lifestyle and to the Empire´s interests.

I´d have no problem at all with a more cynical view of things; say something like "if we deem it necessary to secure our interests, we will share our wine and bread with the devil himself". 


Now i file a few more questions for you to play with.

If Hitler was that relentless cheater, who would always reverse his deals, betraying governments that did trust him, with a thirst for conquest and blood no deed could quench, then answer this:

(1) Why did he not invade Spain? He and Franco were having kind of a good relationship, but for several reasons Spain did not officially enter the war...why did he just not send an army detachment to occupy Spain and seize, say, Gibraltar which was essential to the Brits when it came to access the Mediterranean?

I do not think Spain had an army that could withstand the impact of a Wehrmacht ramming.

(2) And talking about a lunatic which, as depicted by the allies, only cared about adding more trophies in his private quarters...why not Portugal?

Oh crap...if i go for France, then i might as well go for the whole Iberic Peninsula package, it would definitely look cool in my trophy rooms.

(3) Why did he not occupy the whole continental France? I know what you are going to say, yes: he wanted to place a puppet Government to simulate things.

(4) More on France: (discussed ad nauseam)

-Why did he not try to seize the powerful French capital vessels such as Richelieu, Jean Bart, Strasbourg and Dunkerque, plus a number of cruisers and modern destroyers?

I mean not a single unit of the French navy, of any type or displacement was ever seized by the Germans...how come?

If after Dunkerque -and as most of you so boldly suggest- he was seeking the "surrendering" of England, why did he not attempt to seize any French navy units which could have strengthened German naval assets for the so-called "See Lowe"? Any explanations?

- Why did he never attempt to occupy or control French colonies in North/NorthWest Africa? I think that in the mind of such lunatic, it would be an ego boosting experience to have German soldiers rising Nazi flags on African soil.

(5) What do you call Great Britain´s occupation of Iceland in 1940? A cunning plan?

The responses from the most of you are a strange mixture of double speech, contradictions and deliberate blindness.

Hitler hated to see the strenght of the Heer getting scattered across vast regions of land; he would have preferred to save everything for his main plan, which was the attack against the USSR.

I knew you would make fun on my comments Japan was a greater threat to the British Empire during those first years of the war, the problem is that is the truth, not forgetting the threat posed the by the USSR which Great Britain and the USA helped and aided so much. A large chunk of the British Empire was directly threatened by the Rising Sun nation who had a large and very competitive navy to deploy and have Japanese intentions fulfilled. If the fall of Singapore, and its consequences, ain´t fact enought to comprehend this, then i have nothing else to add.

And yes, Churchill was a winner, but see the state of Great Britain following victory in ww2. A bankrupted nation. Things could have been far cheaper for England had Churchill decided to end the war in 1940.


----------



## Njaco (Oct 22, 2007)

> this alleged terror





> of the Allied fairy tale they were fighting an evil regime that sought the annihilation of millions of human beings.





> talking about a lunatic which, as depicted by the allies



Udet, are you telling us that Hitler was Mother Theresa? Its one thing to try to get the point across that Stalin was just as bad as Hitler but to deny what Hitler did just to prop up your point??? That post of yours makes it look like Stalin, Churchill, Roosevelt were the evil Trinity and thats what the war should have been about -getting rid of those three. 



> The responses from the most of you are a strange mixture of double speech, contradictions and deliberate blindness.



I would have to say I find the exact feeling about what you post sometimes. I don't see a give and take, just a clobbering over the head. Is there no room for being objective and discusion?


----------



## Udet (Oct 22, 2007)

Njaco:

No.

Rather, my point is that i see the leaders of world powers as they are, in their true nature and dimension.

The ruler or leader of a world power can not be a nice person Njaco, and i believe you know this very well. This principle is as old as the world is.

I do not deny the bad things Hitler did as ruler of Germany; Nazi atrocities are well documented and it is almost everything we get to hear or read about.

I am pointing at the dark side of the allies, just that.


----------



## Njaco (Oct 22, 2007)

But you're playing it off the bad side of Hitler by saying things like "alleged terror' and " as depicted by the allies". Makes it seem like you believe the Allies were throwing lies about. I agree with you on the points about Stalin and how history has portrayed him. He was just as ruthless or more so than Hitler but at what cost do you make that point? To deny what Hitler did because the others were bad too?

And please enlighten me. The colonies in Africa were under Vichy control that had an agreement/understanding/subjagation to Germany. There was no need to occupy those colonies because Germany was already an absent stepfather. And isn't that where the French Navy was, in control of Vichy French after escaping from the oncoming Germans on Mainland France? I don't see a need to send forces to occupy a country when its already mine.

If I am wrong please tell me the facts. This has been just my impression after years and years of reading on the war.


----------



## merlin (Oct 23, 2007)

Its curious how this 'thread' has evolved (some might say degenerated) over the replies.
On the face of it the situation is a no-brainer - if your country's government not only, gives you no opportunity to disagree or protest, but vilifies and victimisies you and confiscates your assets. When you are able to go to another country, why should helping that Country against the country of your birth be a problem? 
They are not acting as 'traitors' to their country but aiding it to rid it of the blight that is effecting it!

As for some of the other comments that have been raised e.g Britain could have had peace in 1940!
It's quite possible that Sealion was a gigantic bluff! That the UK would be bounced into making peace. Some members of the Cabinet did make peace enquiries. But why should anyone trust Hitler's word - that was the big problem! Chamberlain proudly proclaimed 'peace in our time' after Munich, but after the complete take over of the Czech's in March '39 the reality dawned even on him.
When the 'Ten year rule' ended in 1933 and some re-armament began - the opponent wasn't known - Italy, Germany or even Russia.
If Germany hadn't re-armed, but Stalin still attacked Finland - it's very likely IMO that Anglo-French forces would've been sent to assist.
Hitler was the greater enemy because he, represented the biggest threat to the homelands of France Britain; rather than Japan who only threatened the empire - and who could take them seriously then anyway.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 23, 2007)

Udet said:


> The responses from the most of you are a strange mixture of double speech, contradictions and deliberate blindness.



I see the same thing in your postings Udet. Except yours are much more frightening...


----------



## Marcel (Oct 23, 2007)

Udet said:


> The responses from the most of you are a strange mixture of double speech, contradictions and deliberate blindness.



Okay, let's see...



Udet said:


> As far as i know, there has been no official ceremony where the nations of the world would gather to thank the Allied Powers for saving them from Nazi Germany. Ungrateful bastards.


Every year on the 5th of may, we (the Netherlands) have liberation day. We invite allied vets from the US, the commonwealth, Poland etc. to honour them for their part in liberating the Netherlands. This has been held EVERY year since WWII 62 times already. So your statement above again proves your "deliberate blindness" or isn't it deliberate and are you just blind?.



Udet said:


> Now i file a few more questions for you to play with.
> 
> If Hitler was that relentless cheater, who would always reverse his deals, betraying governments that did trust him, with a thirst for conquest and blood no deed could quench, then answer this:
> 
> ...


Your question...which you answer yourself below.


Udet said:


> Hitler hated to see the strenght of the Heer getting scattered across vast regions of land; he would have preferred to save everything for his main plan, which was the attack against the USSR.


Very good example of your double speech and contradiction. So you accuse us of the very thing which you do yourself in the same post.

One question for you Udet: If Hitler *wasn't* that relentless cheater as you say, why on earth would he promise the Dutch to repect their neutrality on May 9th 1940 and invade the same country at 5 o'clock May th 10th? Not even 12 hours after his promise. Deliberate blindness as you say, you're full of it.


----------



## The Basket (Oct 23, 2007)

I did ask about the Germans invading both Holland and Belgium as both are nuetral countries which were no threat to the Germans.

But no reply yet.


----------



## Maestro (Oct 23, 2007)

Marcel said:


> Every year on the 5th of may, we (the Netherlands) have liberation day. We invite allied vets from the US, the commonwealth, Poland etc. to honour them for their part in leberating the Netherlands. This has been held EVERY year since WWII 62 times already. So your statement above again proves your "deliberate blindness".



I can support that. They talked about it on the news in May 2005 for the 60th anniversary. I even saw a veteran that I know who is almost considered as a national hero in Holland.

Does the name Charles (or Charlie) Forbes rings you a bell, Marcel ?


----------



## Marcel (Oct 23, 2007)

Sorry, no Maestro, but all of them are our national heroes.


----------



## Njaco (Oct 23, 2007)

Basket, I will try with my limited knowledge. 

Germany went Belgium and Holland at the time because England and France had declared war on Germany for invading Poland. England presented a threat especially if British forces were stationed in those countries. Occupy the countries and remove the threat.

There were also I believe strong ties to that area with Britain. I think Queen Wilhemena was related to Queen Victoria.

Didn't work further south in France and Spain because 1) Geography; that area was farther from any threatening forces such as Britain 2) Germany was on friendly terms with Spain - there was no need.

Almost the same reason why Hitler went to Norway, to deny the British any bases from which to operate.

Wait, others here say Britain invaded Norway...oops, I forgot....let me check the date.......


----------



## The Basket (Oct 23, 2007)

I know the reasons Germany invaded Holland and Belgium.

No allied soldiers were in either country and they bent over backwrds to be nice to the Germans.

It was pure aggressive war against two neutral countries to serve German ends. This was after signing a treaty with Belgium too. Of course...once war was over they could have pulled back but nope. Where's the honour in invading nuetral countries whose neutrality is enshrined in treaties signed.

Germany invaded Norway to secure the iron ore routes from Sweden and also give good naval bases. Yes to stop the British but also to further war aims.

Spain was an ally of Germany and in a total wreck. Why attack an ally especially when the target was east.

Jodl said that all Germanys invasions were pre emptive. No one bought it then and I don't buy that now.


----------



## Njaco (Oct 23, 2007)

I don't know Basket. I remember Belgium fighting until the middle of the Dunkirk fiasco. And the attack on Rotterdam was new and horrible for that time.

I don't see them as giving Hitler the keys to their countries at the time.

And Jodl was correct in many aspects that the attacks into the Low countries and Norway were pre-emptive. Britain would've used those as bases for Allied forces. Geography also plays a part if you look at ports and the quickest way to attack your enemy. Same reason why it occurred in 1914-1918.


----------



## The Basket (Oct 23, 2007)

They were neutral until invaded.

The jews of both countries were deported not because of British threats but because it was Nazi policy...just as the invasions were.

Yeah military good idea but not honest.


----------



## Njaco (Oct 23, 2007)

I'm not disagreeing with you on that point. I thought you were making the point that the Low Countries were invaded just for pure grabbing by Hitler because there was no threat. I don't think that was the case. I could be wrong.


----------



## Marcel (Oct 24, 2007)

Njaco said:


> I'm not disagreeing with you on that point. I thought you were making the point that the Low Countries were invaded just for pure grabbing by Hitler because there was no threat. I don't think that was the case. I could be wrong.



The reason is for invading the Netherlands was quite ironical. Basic plan was to go trough Belgium and not through The Netherlands in order to evade the French Maginot line, just like WWI. Unfortunately a Fiesler Storch lost it's way in the mist and landed in Belgium, with papers carrying the whole plan. So the Germans made a ew plan, including The Netherlands. Now we know there never was much need to change tha plan, as the Belgians never believed the plan was authentic. So for us it was just bad luck for the dutch. This story can be read in The Luftwaffe War diaries.


----------



## Njaco (Oct 24, 2007)

The Mechelen Affair - January 10, 1940.


----------



## merlin (Oct 24, 2007)

Njaco: Where do get the idea that Anglo-french forces would be stationed in the low Countries!?
France wanted to have Army staff talks with the Belgiums to plan what to do, in the event of the Germans compremising their neutrality; but these were broken off - in their were seen as provocative to the Germans. The French assumed more work was done on a defensive line - and thus when the time came advanced too far forward.
The Germans didn't need the low countries to protect themselves from a threat from Britain. But to enable them to make their own!
The disintergration of the French Army, wan't expected by the Germans if they had been held at the Somme - that would have been more in line with expectations. However, it would have given the Germans what they wanted, regarding the British - air bases.


----------



## Njaco (Oct 24, 2007)

As I said I could be wrong. If I am, sorry. I'm gonna check some resources I have because I was under the impression that the invasion through the Low Countries was to deny Britain a base for operations - in addition to numerous other reasons.

And forces weren't stationed there but it was a belief by the Germans.

But again I could be wrong. Its always possible!


----------



## plan_D (Oct 24, 2007)

The Germans invaded Holland and Belgium for purely strategic reasons; they aimed to draw the British and French troops away from the Ardennes and up north so the main strike through the Ardennes could encircle them against the Channel. World War II was total war, and everything was attempted by all nations to win. 

The Britain 'invasion' of Norway was to cut off iron ore shipments from Narvik *and* give an overland route to Finland for the war against the Soviet Union. Germany was stopping this, and invaded Denmark on its way.


----------



## Marcel (Oct 24, 2007)

The Germans wanted to go trough Belgium so thay could attack France from the less defended North (the French/German border was protected by the fortifications of the Maginot Line). It was exactly the same as in WWI! I have already described why The Netherlands were involved, too. British and French using the 2 countries as a base of attack had nothing to do with it. Also Hitler didn't want them as trophies, they are too small anyway. It was as Udet would point out just a strategic action. When attacking the countries, they couldn't just go trough to France, but they had to occupy the whole country for otherwise they would have enemy forces (Belgian and Dutch Armies) at their unprotected flank.
The reason why is understandable, the way how it was done was a great example hoe "reliable" Hitler was.


----------



## plan_D (Oct 24, 2007)

The invasion plan of World War II was completely different from World War I. The Schliffen Plan was to use a pivot point in southern Germany and use a strong arm to move across the north (Holland and Belgium) and strike into France from that direction. This plan was going to be used once again in World War II but after much discussion Mansteins plan was opted for. The decision was helped by the fact that a Storch crashed in Allied terrority and it was assumed the plan was not destroyed before capture.

The Manstein plan was to invade Belgium and Holland as a diversion. The invasion was to make as much noise and commotion as possible to divert Allied attentions. The Belgian-German border was also protected by a series of forts and the German commanders believed that it would take some time to overcome these.
The main thrust of the attack was through the Ardennes forest and Luxembourg. This attack was to drive on through Sedan and cross the Meuse then head north toward Dunkirk and Calais. If the move was completed the Allied forces in the north were cut off and surrounded. 

In reality the diversion through Holland went a lot better than expected and a breakthrough was achieved in the north and in the Ardennes - the Allies were surrounded. 

After the initial phase, the Wehrmacht was to turn south and surround the Maginot Line and attack with armour from the rear and infantry from Germany. The infantry found the Maginot Line to be breachable with relative ease. Then the rest of France was to fall.

The World War II plan was much smarter and ambitious than that of the World War I (Schliffen Plan).


----------



## Marcel (Oct 24, 2007)

Thanks plan_D, good info. WWII was a total war but I think we were showing that Hitler wasn't the nice guy as some like us to believe. Hitler's clear disdain for neutral status proves he could not be trusted.


----------



## ccheese (Oct 30, 2007)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> You might want to read up on this some more.
> 
> Rommel was accused of being apart of the plot to kill Hitler. He was given the choice of a Trial where he would be found guilty and his whole family would be "dealt" with or the choice of Suicide. He took suicide naturally to protect his family. Because Rommel was loved by the German people his death was officially announced as have occured because of the wounds he obtained in an air attack in Normandy and was given a state funeral.




Since this was posted I have done some research. I have it on good
authority that Rommel was, in fact, a member of the schwarz kapelle.
I do not have the info in front of me but I will dig it up this evening and
post it. Adler is correct about him being given a choice of a public trial
or "suicide". He chose the latter to protect and to provide for his family.

I am also compiling of list of members of the schwarz kapelle....

Charles


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 30, 2007)

ccheese said:


> Since this was posted I have done some research. I have it on good
> authority that Rommel was, in fact, a member of the schwarz kapelle.
> I do not have the info in front of me but I will dig it up this evening and
> post it. Adler is correct about him being given a choice of a public trial
> ...



I have met Rommels son on several ocasions and even spent some time at his house near Ulm viewing is awards and uniforms and pictures. Rommel was a good man who fought for his country but not for the Nazi ideal.

Charles those that are believed to be members of the Schwarze Kapelle are:

Ulrich von Hassell 1881–1944, German ambassador in Rome 1932–1938

Carl Goerdeler 1884–1945, mayor of Leipzig 1930–1937

Dietrich Bonhoeffer, the theologian

Admiral Canaris, the head of the Abwehr, and his deputy Hans Oster,

General Henning von Tresckow, chief of operations at the HQ of Kluge's Army Group Centre.

Helmut von Moltke 1907–1945, great-grand-nephew of a hero of the Franco-Prussian war of 1870

Adam von Trott zu Solz 1909–1944, a descendant on his mother's side of the first chief justice of the USA

Ernst von Weizsacker 1882–1950, permanent head of the German foreign office from 1938 to 1943

Count Claus Schenk Graf von Stauffenberg 1907–1944, a great-grandson of August von Gneisenau, a devout Roman Catholic, an officer in a cavalry regiment in peacetime and a distinguished staff officer in war.

As for Rommel I am not sure if he was actual member or not.


----------



## Njaco (Nov 1, 2007)

Been away for a few days. But I did find a few things.



> merlin...Njaco: Where do get the idea that Anglo-french forces would be stationed in the low Countries!?



from Atlas of WW II Battle Plans, Royal Military Academy Sandhurst, pg 20...." Allied operational planning was driven by Belgium's decision in 1936 to abandon its military alliance with France and declare its neutrality.....In November 1939 French General Maurice Gamelin persuaded both Allied governments to adopt his "Plan D".....which called for an Allied advance as far north as the Dutch city of Breda."

from Hitler's Blitzkrieg Campaigns, J.E. Kaufmann and H.W. Kaufmann, pg 121...."the 1st French Army Group would advance deep into northern Belgium and occupy a line running from Antwerp to Namur, along the Dyle River..."

as for my other contention


> that the invasion through the Low Countries was to deny Britain a base for operations



German General Halder recorded in his diary that "...we will have to strike in the West as soon as possible. 1). Belgium's apparent renunciatrion of her neutrality threatens the Ruhr Valley. This means we must gain sufficent territory to serve as a wide protective area for our intrests...2).Striking across Holland and Belgium, this would: a) gain the Belgium-Dutch coast, which would give us a base for an air offensive against England."

Fuhrer Directive No. 6 -"was prepared to put German troops on the attack as soon as possible with an offensive through Belgium and possibly Holland in order to gain as much Territory as possible....then serve as a base of operations for the air and naval war against Great Britain."


Hope that clears up a little of my statements.


----------



## ccheese (Nov 1, 2007)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> As for Rommel I am not sure if he was actual member or not.



Chris: I am uploading a page from the book "Bodyguard of Lies", by Anthony
C. Brown. This book (in two volumes) goes into the deceptions created by
MI-5 and MI-6. This page starts out with a conversation between Rommel
and Dr. Karl Stroelin, Mayor Of Stuttgart. They are talking about a new
"Valkyrie"... a plot to kill Hitler...

Charles


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 2, 2007)

Very interesting.

A side not. Rommels son Manfred became the Mayor of Stuttgart when I lived there. As I said I met him on a few occations.


----------



## ccheese (Nov 2, 2007)

Also, Chris, there are people named in the book who were members of the 
SK whom you have not named. I'm going thru the books (both of them)
and compiling a list of the members.

Charles


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 2, 2007)

Cant wait Charles. I really would like to see this when you are done.


----------



## Kurfürst (Nov 2, 2007)

How neutral was Holland and Belgium anyway (seriously asking) ?

French - Belgian military cooperation, the Venlo incident (involving Dtuch intelligence working together with British in a plot against Hitler, hmm..), British bombers allowed flying over Benelux territory over on their route to Germany.


----------



## Marcel (Nov 2, 2007)

Kurfürst said:


> French - Belgian military cooperation, the Venlo incident (involving Dtuch intelligence working together with British in a plot against Hitler, hmm..), British bombers allowed flying over Benelux territory over on their route to Germany.


Hi Kurfürst,

Dutch people were not that keen on the English because of the Boer war (Boer people being of dutch descendant) but they also didn't have a high opinion of Nazi's either, so they preferred to be neutral. 
I know of at least one British bomber (a Whitley) intercepted by dutch G.I's in 1939 and I don't know about any succesful interception of german planes (I'm not saying they didn''t try), so I don't know where you get the idea of leaving the British bombers alone while flying over dutch territory.


The dutch involvement in the venlo incident is quite a long story, but basicly comes down to this.

From Bob de Graaff: The Venlo Incident


> Much information was to be gained from the Netherlands. Not only because it was close to Germany, but also because the Dutch intelligence service GS III (Section III of the General Staff), always out of money, had made an arrangement with foreign agencies whereby they were free to gather information in the Netherlands as long as they stayed within the law, did not harm other agents and - most important of all - shared their intelligence with GS III.
> 
> This system of intelligence sharing had been established by the Dutch during the First World War. At that time it had seemed to be a more rewarding course to follow than forbidding all forms of espionage. *Besides, as long as all interested parties were entitled to the same arrangements, it fitted in well with the Dutch policy of neutrality.* For several years the Netherlands had been a true clearing house for intelligence.



Don't know anything about the Belgiums, but I hope this helps


----------



## Kurfürst (Nov 2, 2007)

Thanks, the part about Holland`s 'Intelligence tourism' is something totally new to me !


----------



## Marcel (Nov 2, 2007)

Yeah, sounds rather strange eh. Can't imagine it myself, but seems to be true


----------



## Njaco (Nov 7, 2007)

Just read this passage in a book and it seems appropriate.

From "Defeat In The West" by Milton Shulman, pg 170-171:

(about 20 July 1944)

"But the one resistance group, without which the entire plot would have been impossible, came from the officer corps of the German Army. Since it possesed the only means of achieving a physical seizure of power it constituted the most important active element concerned with the mechanics of the putsch itself. The steady encroachment of Hitler upon the political independance of the army inevitably left scars which even military victories could not heal. The dismissal of von Fritsch and von Blomberg, which enabled Hitler to assume personal control of the Wehrmacht, was followed by the protests of the General Staff against Hitler's plan to occupy Czrchoslovakia. This latter incident resulted in the resignation of Colonel-General Ludwig Beck, Chief-of-Staff of the Army, and the almost complete domination of the officer corps by Hitler. But unlike Beck, unlike von Fritsch and von Blomberg, was unwilling to accept the degeneration of the army's independance as a fait accompli. It was Beck, who, as early as 1938, began to assemble about him the military figures dicontented enough with the Nazi regime to oppose it actively. In him was centered the hope and ambition of the conspirators of 20th July.
.... Beck, coming from a family of businessmen and intellectuals, possesed a non-military background which fitted him well for his role as a link between the civilian and military elements of the conspiracy. Conscientious and tireless in his activities, he had been greatly respected by the officer corps during his term as Chief-of-Staff, and he was thus able to draw into the plot high-ranking officers who trusted his ability and judgement. Beck's political views were Conservative and neither original nor profound. His hostility towards the Nazis stemmed chiefly from the feeling that they had damaged the prestige and authority of the army and had thereby inflicted upon the German nation a serious wrong which would eventually lead it to disaster."

Just trying to shed some light on the motivations of a traitor/conspirator/patriot/etc.


----------

