Stretching German Gasoline Supply.

[davebender]

German military spending as a % of GDP.
1.9 1933.
1.9 1934.
4.0 1935. Increase army to 36 divisions. After French refusal to disarm their large standing army.
5.8 1936. Spanish Civil War begins.
8.2 1937. Germany response to 14 billion franc French military expansion approved during September 1936.
18.4 1938.

I think a "no war" philosophy is more applicable to 1936 Germany. They had a détente with Britain during the time frame we are discussing and that makes a big difference diplomatically. Germany did not begin serious rearmament until 1938 when relations with Britain went south and France threated invasion by mobilizing 1 million troops along the border.

 

[Shortround6]

Germany did not begin serious rearmament until 1938 when relations with Britain went south and France threated invasion by mobilizing 1 million troops along the border.

Was the French mobilization before or after Austria was annexed into the German Third Reich on 12 March 1938?

Was the French mobilization before or after German's annexation of Czechoslovakia's Sudetenland?

Or during that crisis? Like French called for mobilization on Sept 7. Of course this is after the Germans call up 750,000 troops For "maneuvers? on Aug 12.

Sorry, but this portrayal of Germany in the mid to late 30s as a peace loving nation driven to war by it's neighbors isn't cutting it.

Some of the German Citizens may have been peace loving but's leaders were not.

 

[Edgar Brooks]

Germany did not begin serious rearmament until 1938 when relations with Britain went south and France threated invasion by mobilizing 1 million troops along the border.

???????? Tirpitz laid down Oct 1936, launched April 1937;
Bismarck laid down July 1936,
Scheer planned for in 1931,
Hipper Blucher ordered 1934,
Graf Spee ordered 1932, launched 1934,
Scharnhorst Gneisenau laid down 1935, launched 1936,
Me 109 ordered 1934/5, 109B in 1936,
He111 ordered 1934,
Ju87 ordered 1934, first flew 1935.

 

[parsifal]

Its also completely untrue and as usual deliberately misleading to portray German rearmament as a response to French agreession or militarism. Hitlers various memorandums dating back to the earliest days of the regime, and even before that make it very clear what the intentions were. In regard to the motor vehicle industry it was in the first instance to be expanded and organzied for export sales and for domestic production, however changeover to military production standards was always planned. It finished up being botched, that much I will concede, mostly because of Hiterls corruption and intervention. Because of the failure of the full implementation of the Schell plan (a result of Hilters nepertism yet again), the detailed plans for changeover to military standards and types were never fulfilled, but these moves date all the way back to 1934 and was clearly aimed at waging an aggrressive war. Moreover, the quotes given for military spending are wrong, and further still dont take into account the massive spending being undertaken in what might be termed support industries.

Make no mistake. From the very beginning the Nazis prepred and planned for an aggressive war. This was conclusively shown and established at Nurenberg after the war, and the detail is ther for anyone to find. It most certainly was not because of the french or any other external power. The Germans went after their neighbours, not the other way round.

The claim that the Nazis had peaceful interntion at any time in their existence is laughable

 

[DonL]

???????? Tirpitz laid down Oct 1936, launched April 1937;
Bismarck laid down July 1936,
Scheer planned for in 1931,
Hipper Blucher ordered 1934,
Graf Spee ordered 1932, launched 1934,
Scharnhorst Gneisenau laid down 1935, launched 1936,
Me 109 ordered 1934/5, 109B in 1936,
He111 ordered 1934,
Ju87 ordered 1934, first flew 1935.

I agree with you, but to be fair the three "Panzerschiffe" (Deutschland, Admiral Scheer and Admiral Graf Spee) were all planed and ordered from the Weimar Republic to replace the old Deutschland Klasse from 1904, this has very little to do with rearmament.

To my opinion all political parties of the Weimar Republic even the SPD wanted to eliminate the Versaille Treaty and an rearmament of the german military (Air Force, Navy, Army). So many of the above Weapon Systems we have also seen but in more little numbers, if germany were not lead by the Nazis but from democratic parties and the democratic parties had have success to eliminate the Versaille Treaty.

Also there would be always a tendency and the danger that Germany, even with democratic parties in the lead and France/Poland could get in a "revenge" war. German people hadn't forget the humiliation of the Versaille Treaty and the Ruhroccupation in the 1930's.

But and this is a very big but, the Nazis planed an agressive war from the beginning and here I totaly agree with parsifal!

 

[parsifal]

Here are some extracts of Hitlers memorandum dated 19 August 1936. Parts of it had ben repeated in various earlier directives, but it all came together after the re-ccupation of the Rhineland

Part I

"I therefore draw up the following programme for a final solution of our vital needs: I. Like the military and political rearmament and mobilization of our people, there must also be an economic one, and this must be effected in the same tempo, with the same determination, and, if need be, with the same ruthlessness as well. In future the interests of individual gentlemen can no longer be allowed to play any part in these matters. There is only one interest and that is the interest of the nation, and only one single view, which is that Germany must be brought politically and economically into a state of self-sufficiency. II. For this purpose, in every sphere where it is possible to satisfy our needs through German production, foreign exchange must be saved in order that it can be applied to those requirements which can under no circumstances be supplied except by imports. III. Accordingly, German fuel production must now be stepped up with the utmost speed and be brought to final completion within 18 months. This task must be attacked and carried out with the same determination as the waging of a war; for on its solution depends the conduct of the future war and not on the laying in of stocks of petroleum. IV. It is equally urgent that the mass production of synthetic rubber should be organized and secured. The contention that the processes are perhaps not yet fully determined and similar excuses must cease from now on. It is not a matter of discussing whether we want to wait any longer, for that would be losing time, and the hour of peril would take us all unaware. Above all it is not the task of State economic institutions to rack their brains over production methods. This has nothing to do with the Ministry of Economics. Either we possess today a private industry, in which case it is its task to rack its brains about production methods, or we believe that the determination of production methods is the task of the State, in which case we no longer need private industry.

The question of the cost of these raw materials is also quite irrelevant, since it is in any case better for us to produce in Germany dearer tyres which we can use, than for us to sell [sic – verkaufen] theoretically cheap tyres for which, however, the Ministry of Economics can allocate no foreign exchange and which, consequently, cannot be used produced for lack of raw materials and consequently cannot be used at all. If we are in any case compelled to build up a large-scale domestic economy on the lines of autarky – which we are – for lamenting and harping on our foreign exchange plight will in any case not solve the problem – then the price of raw materials individually considered no longer plays a decisive part. It is further necessary to increase German production of iron to the utmost. The objection that we are not in a position to produce from the German iron ore, with 26 per cent content, as cheap a pig-iron as from the 45 per cent Swedish ores, etc., is irrelevant because we are not in fact faced with the question of what would rather do but only of what we can do. The objection, moreover, that in that event all the German blast furnaces would have to be converted is equally irrelevant; and, what is more, this is no concern of the Ministry of Economics. It is for the Ministry of Economics simply to set the national economic tasks, and it is for private industry to carry them out. But should private industry believe that it is not able to do this, then the National Socialist State will succeed in carrying out this task on its own. In any case, for a thousand years Germany had no foreign iron ores. Even before the war, more German iron ores were being processed than during the period of our worst decline. Nevertheless, if we still have the possibility of importing cheap ores, well and good. But the future of the national economy and, above all, of the conduct of war, must not be dependent on this. It is further necessary to prohibit forthwith the distillation of alcohol from potatoes. Fuel must be obtained from the ground and not from potatoes. Instead, it is our duty to use any arable land that may become available, either for human or animal foodstuffs or for the cultivation of fibrous products. It is further necessary for us to make our supplies of industrial fats independent of imports as rapidly as possible and to meet them from our coal. This task has been solved chemically and is actually crying out to be done. The German economy will either grasp the new economic tasks or else it will prove itself quite incompetent to survive in this modern age when a Soviet State is setting up a gigantic plan. But in that case it will not be Germany who will go under, but, at most, a few industrialists. It is further necessary to increase Germany's output of other ores, regardless of cost, and in particular to increase the production of light metals to the utmost in order to produce a substitute for certain other metals.

It is, finally, necessary for rearmament too to make use even now whenever possible of those materials which must and will replace high-grade metals in time of war. It is better to consider and solve these problems in time of peace than to wait for the next war, and only then, in the midst of a multitude of tasks, to try to undertake these economic researches and methodical testings too. In short: I consider it necessary that now, with iron determination, a 100 per cent self-sufficiency should be attained in all those spheres where it is feasible, and that not only should the national requirements in these most important raw materials be made independent of other countries but that we should also thus save the foreign exchange which in peacetime we require for our imports of foodstuffs. Here I would emphasize that in these tasks I see the only true economic mobilization and not in the throttling of armament industries in peacetime in order to save and stockpile raw materials for war. But I further consider it necessary to make an immediate investigation into the outstanding debts in foreign exchange owed to German business abroad. There is no doubt that the outstanding claims of German business are today quite enormous. Nor is there any doubt that behind this in some cases there lies concealed the contemptible desire to possess, whatever happens, certain reserves abroad which are thus withheld from the grasp of the domestic economy. I regard this as deliberate sabotage of our national self-assertion and of the defence of the Reich, and for this reason I consider it necessary for the Reichstag to pass the following two laws: 1) A law providing the death penalty for economic sabotage, and 2) A law making the whole of Jewry liable for all damage inflicted by individual specimens of this community of criminals upon the German economy, and thus upon the German people. Moreover, only the performance of these tasks in the form of a Several Years Plan for rendering our national economy independent of foreign countries will make it possible for the first time to demand sacrifices from the German people in the economic sphere and the sphere of foodstuffs, for in that case the people will have a right to demand of their leaders, whom they blindly acknowledge, that they tackle the problems in this sphere too with unprecedented and resolute action and do not merely discuss them, that they solve them and do not merely record them!

Nearly four precious years have now gone by. There is no doubt that by now we could have been completely independent of foreign countries in the sphere of fuel supplies, rubber supplies, and partly also iron ore supplies. Just as we are now producing 700,000 or 800,000 tons of petroleum, we could be producing 3 million tons. Just as we are today manufacturing a few thousand tons of rubber, we could already be producing 70,000 or 80,000 tons per annum. Just as we have stepped up the production of iron ore from 2½ million tons to 7 million tons, so we could process 20 or 25 million tons of German iron ore, and if necessary even 30 million. There has been time enough in four years to discover what we cannot do. It is now necessary to state what we can do".

 

[Njaco]

???????? Tirpitz laid down Oct 1936, launched April 1937;
Bismarck laid down July 1936,
Scheer planned for in 1931,
Hipper Blucher ordered 1934,
Graf Spee ordered 1932, launched 1934,
Scharnhorst Gneisenau laid down 1935, launched 1936,
Me 109 ordered 1934/5, 109B in 1936,
He111 ordered 1934,
Ju87 ordered 1934, first flew 1935.

You forgot when "Mein Kampf" was published.

 

[parsifal]

I agree with you, but to be fair the three "Panzerschiffe" (Deutschland, Admiral Scheer and Admiral Graf Spee) were all planed and ordered from the Weimar Republic to replace the old Deutschland Klasse from 1904, this has very little to do with rearmament.

To my opinion all political parties of the Weimar Republic even the SPD wanted to eliminate the Versaille Treaty and an rearmament of the german military (Air Force, Navy, Army). So many of the above Weapon Systems we have also seen but in more little numbers, if germany were not lead by the Nazis but from democratic parties and the democratic parties had have success to eliminate the Versaille Treaty.

Also there would be always a tendency and the danger that Germany, even with democratic parties in the lead and France/Poland could get in a "revenge" war. German people hadn't forget the humiliation of the Versaille Treaty and the Ruhroccupation in the 1930's.

But and this is a very big but, the Nazis planed an agressive war from the beginning and here I totaly agree with parsifal!

Completely agree. Von Seekt epitomises the feelings of the german establishment of this unfair and unequal treaty. It was one thing to free germany of the burden of the versaille treaty, but the nazis went a lot further than that. Versaille was an unsatisfactory treaty for all parties. For those with evil intent and wanting to dismember germany, it failed to deliver. For those wanting a reconcilaition, it was simply too nasty in its details to ever deliver on that. It was cynical in the extreme because it paraded as being based on Wilsons 14 points. In fact it was just a cynical parody of it.

Make no mistake, i am in the camp of Pershing. No surrender terms should have been offered to Ludendorf until unconditional surrender had been secured. Distasteful as it is, the germans never experienced warfare on their own soil in WWI. Perhaps (only perhaps) if they had, they ight not have been as quick to return to war 20 years later.

 

[DonL]

Make no mistake, i am in the camp of Pershing. No surrender terms should have been offered to Ludendorf until unconditional surrender had been secured.

Here we have no disagreement!
To be exact, to my opinion every big nation of WWI was guilty of WWI, because every big nation had it's very own interests and agenda, so not germany was alone guilty!
But the german empery and Willie (that included Ludendorf and the other military leaders) were at the end of their timeline!

Distasteful as it is, the germans never experienced warfare on their own soil in WWI. Perhaps (only perhaps) if they had, they ight not have been as quick to return to war 20 years later.

I don't know, many to all familys had dead sons and at the end of the war the foot shortage was dangerous and many or most german people suffering hunger. So it was no warfare but I think enough harm for the german people.

To me as you stated the Versaille Treaty was the real issue.

Mr. Joschka Fischer (ex foreign secretary of germany) had said some very wise sentence: "Germany is too big/powerfull for Europe (economy, military) but too little/weak to be a global power.


I think if the allieds have tried to bind germany (Weimar Republic) in an european context as equal member with equal interests (mostly trade and also military security) many harm could have been denied!

To me Mr. Clemenceau was one of the people who didn't understand, that you can't humiliatie to this extend, the most powerfull nation of Europe from economy- and military- options and direct neighbour of his own country without major consequences, for a long time period.
His thinking was mostly driven from revenge and hate and a totaly wrong imagination of security for France.
From my knowledge he was the most driven person to get revenge on germany and get the Versaille Traty as it was, without concessions for germany.
I think Mr. Wilson and Mr. Lloyd George have to be stronger against Mr. Clemenceau and Mr. Wilson had to my opinion the right vision but was not powerfull enough against all the other countrys (most of them) which were only driven by their very own interests.

 

[Tante Ju]

???????? Tirpitz laid down Oct 1936, launched April 1937;
Bismarck laid down July 1936,

Bismarck and Tirpitz were response to French Richeliue laid down 22 October 1935, Jean Bart, in December 1936.

Scheer planned for in 1931,Graf Spee ordered 1932, launched 1934,

The Deutschland class were replacement for the old imperial pre-dreadnaughts. Six permitted by the Versailles treaty (10 000 tons, 28 cm guns). Deutschland were excellent ships, more like cruisers but still - just replacement, and hardly a 'rearmament'. The old ships were withdrawn from service as the new ones were built.

Scharnhorst Gneisenau laid down 1935, launched 1936,

Scharnhorst Gneisenau were response to French Dunkerque laid down 24 December 1932, Strasbourg in November 1934.

Me 109 ordered 1934/5, 109B in 1936,
He111 ordered 1934,
Ju87 ordered 1934, first flew 1935.

And what's your point? The Germans procured modern planes like everybody else. Hurricane was ordered in 1933 for example, the Spitfire originated to a British specification of monoplane fighter 1931 etc. OP was saying there was no serious rearmament until 1938. Even during Spanish civil war Legio Kondor was flying completely obsolate planes like Ju 52 and Heinkel biplane fighters for most part... there were no 109 until 1938 in Spain, no Ju 87A either... and even then small number. Why is that if rearmarmament was so massive before that as you imply..?

 

[DonL]

@ Tante Ju

If you want to rearmament your miltary after 15 years absent from some very important Weapon Systems and do this proper, then you need research and development time and much money.

What you are writing is simply true on the surface, but to my opinion nazi germany could not develop faster modern weapons.
So only why the circumstances at the first hint looked like the german rearmament was only a reaction to france rearmament, it isn't true.
Hitler and the Nazis were agressive from their first day at their goverment and they were working very hard from the start at 1933 for their goals and a big war.

Bismarck and Tirpitz were response to French Richeliue laid down 22 October 1935, Jean Bart, in December 1936.

Yes but Richeliue and Jean Bart were a response to the Littorios!

As I said above, many weapon systems of germany we have also seen if germany would be in the lead of democratic parties after a successful elimination of the Versaille Treaty but in more little numbers with a much much less agressive politic.

 

[Tante Ju]

@ Tante Ju

If you want to rearmament your miltary after 15 years absent from some very important Weapon Systems and do this proper, then you need reasearch and development time and much money.

What you are writing is simply true on the surface, but to my opinion nazi germany could not develop faster modern weapons.
So only why the circumstances at the first hint looked like the german rearmament was only a reaction to france rearmament, it isn't true.

German rearmament policy existed independently of France of course. Immiidate after World War I during Weimar Republic, in that there was no difference in that when Hitler came to power, he just built on the foundation provided by the people before him. Hitler of course had an agressive foreign policy in mind, but its also impossible to ignore the French rearmament's effects on speeding up German rearmament.

France had a big standing army with lots of heavy weapons, Germany had none in the 1930s. If Germany wanted to break free of Versailles, it wasn't going to happen without an effective armed force. And all political parties wanted to do that, so re-armament was inevitable.

It is true about time. But these weapons systems were not founded by the Nazi, truth is that weapons systems and tactics were developed in secrecy by Weimar republic. Already in 1920 when Hitler and cronies were nowhere near the steering wheel Krupp was developing basis of Flak 88 in Sweden, Rheinmetall was doing MG research in Switzerland's Solothurn, the core of the Luftwaffe and Panzerwaffe were making training in USSR.. etc.

Hitler and the Nazis were agressive from their first day at their goverment and they were working very hard from the start at 1933 for their goals and a big war.

I don't think Nazi were planning for a big war in 1939. Certainly later from everything I read, by say, 1946, when all fleet, air programme are completed. By that time other's war rearmament would be completed, too. Sadly the world was going towards a massive war in the 1930, not in just Germany, but the US was on a collision course with Japan, France with Italy, it was a matter of when the French and German war would broke out, and the USSR waiting to take the opportunity for a big world revolution.. with a bit of help of Red Army. It feels very much like before 1914.

Yes but Richeliue and Jean Bart were a response to the Littorios!

Yes. My point was that there was a naval arms race between France and Germany in 1930s, which was fueled by French developments. Germany did not require a strong surface navy per-se, but it was threatened by France and all German weapon systems were tailored against the French threat. Of course French developments at the same time, at least partly were fueled by Mussolini's naval ambitions.

As I said above, many weapon systems of germany we have also seen if germany would be in the lead of democratic parties after a successful elimination of the Versaille Treaty but in more little numbers with a much much less agressive politic.

I agree. Though there were hardly any democratic parties with chance to govern in 1933, so the idea is a bit theoretical. Realistically the choice was between the Nazi and the Commie, and to me a rearming Germany with Commie leaders joining the USSR does not sound to well either.. I presume they would probably take a similar route, given that Poland's anti germanism and anti communism would not change.. and a communist Germany allied to a communist USSR is not much more reassuring than what happened historically.. I don't think there would be much of chance for a modern europe this way.. at least historically the two most evil ideoligies were at each other's throat, more or less cancelling each other.. at a horrible cost. This is another story.

 

[Shortround6]

While the Deutschland class were replacements for the old imperial pre-dreadnaughts, their capabilities scared the crap out of the British. NO DEFENSIVE ship needed a 10,000 mile range. With their combination of guns, speed and thin armor it was rather obvious that they were intended to be commerce raiders. They were hardly replacements but signaled Germany's intention of waging a war on sea born trade if needed.
It does take several years to design a battle ship. While the design offices are always busy designing something "in case" it is wanted/needed the ordering dates (if known) might be a better indicator than the laying down dates, which are sometimes limited by both finances and available building slips.
Conventional "wisdom" has it that the French Dunkerque and Strasbourg were built to counter the Deutschlands. And the Scharnhorst Gneisenau were a response to the French pair. But did the French start the cycle?

The Germans ordering the 109, the 111 and the Ju 87 was perfectly normal, what was not so normal was the hundreds of Arado and He 51 fighters built before the 109s and the hundreds of Dornier bombers and Junkers bombers built before the 111 was built in numbers.

 

[DonL]

While the Deutschland class were replacements for the old imperial pre-dreadnaughts, their capabilities scared the crap out of the British. NO DEFENSIVE ship needed a 10,000 mile range. With their combination of guns, speed and thin armor it was rather obvious that they were intended to be commerce raiders. They were hardly replacements but signaled Germany's intention of waging a war on sea born trade if needed.

One moment!

The design parameters for the replacemnt of the old imperial pre-dreadnaughts are listed at the Versaille Treaty.
Germany wasn't allowed to built a replacement design higher then 10000ts deplacement, but was allowed the same caliber.

But standard deplacemnet was specified at the Washington Treaty where germany wasn't allowed but the allieds allowed germany to specify the 10000ts deplacemnt of the Versaille Treaty after the standard deplacement of the Washington Treaty, but germany wasn't bound to the heavy cruiser specification of the caliber (8 inch/ 20,3cm).

The range, heavy guns and the relative high speed of the Panzerschiffe was absolutely on purpose to create a ship (political) what was not specified with the Washington Treaty.

The intention was to built something dangerous with the given limits, to get back political as an equal member.

You realy can name the Deutschland class political ships, that was the main goal and intention of the Weimar Republic. They wanted back as equal partners and have create something realy serious, with what they can deal.

 

[Siegfried]

It should be noted that the Anglo-German naval treaty of 1935, which Britain eagerly signed, allowed Germany a navy at 35% of British tonnage. The Germans got nowhere near it. In fact the treaty required the German navy to have a balanced fleet which compelled them to more battleships than they would have preferred. The Scharnhorst Gniesus 11 inch guns were well below the 13 inches the Kriegsmarine wanted and a gesture of Goodwill directly determined by Hitler as the British were traditionally paranoid about naval gun calibres.

Germany had legitimate naval needs.

Between her formation with the unification of 16 German states in 1871 to 1914 Germany was the most peacefull of European nations fighting absolutely no wars While Britain and France fought several. Prior to that German or Prussian wars looked more like civil wars.

There wasn't even a plan to invade Czechoslovakia; Hitler only did so after Eduard Benes cried wolf and faked a planned invasion. German officers escorted British officers around the border and the lie was exposed however Hitler was humiliated as the press made it seem he had been aggressive and forced to back down when there had been no invasion preparations or even plans at all. The event upset Hitler. Latter as a plebiscite for Suddeten German independence was in preparation Czech police entered the homes of German political activists and bashed them in a vain and silly attempt to intimidate them. (99% voted to leave in supervised elections). It was the former event which caused Hitler to plot the end the end of Czecholovakian chimera and the latter that firmed his decision. The million Mygars gladly went back to Hungary, the Suddetens to Germany, Tschen was grabbed by a Polish invasion while the slovaks declared independence after receiving guarantees from Hitler to protect them from Hungarian designs, this leaving the Czechs isolated. Hitler took his time then simplynintimidated a Czech surrender nevertheless he was somewhat generous; allowing the Czechs their parliament for a while And paying out the parliamentarians pensions.

 

[Tante Ju]

While the Deutschland class were replacements for the old imperial pre-dreadnaughts, their capabilities scared the crap out of the British. NO DEFENSIVE ship needed a 10,000 mile range. With their combination of guns, speed and thin armor it was rather obvious that they were intended to be commerce raiders. They were hardly replacements but signaled Germany's intention of waging a war on sea born trade if needed.

Agree!

It does take several years to design a battle ship. While the design offices are always busy designing something "in case" it is wanted/needed the ordering dates (if known) might be a better indicator than the laying down dates, which are sometimes limited by both finances and available building slips.
Conventional "wisdom" has it that the French Dunkerque and Strasbourg were built to counter the Deutschlands. And the Scharnhorst Gneisenau were a response to the French pair. But did the French start the cycle?.

It is more difficult to answer, as slowly we go back to Adam and Eve. Deutschlands were no doubt offensive in spririt. While may they have "scared the crap out of the British", they did too with the French. It did have something to do with the French occupying the Ruhr area in 1921, and in 1923. It turned everybody's attention to how vulnerable they were to French bullying. Design studies on sevaral types of replacments begun in 1923 (some of them slow, heavily armed and armored), but the design was finalized between 1926-28, with decision taken on the final variant (the light commerce raider won vs. what were essential coastal monitors).These ships were designed obviously with the intent of wreacking havoc on FRENCH sea trade if the French start a war.

An interesting thing on wiki is that as everyone was scared of the specs, they offered Germany an entry into the the Washington treaty, granting her the same rights as others and the right to build full capital ships up to 125 000 tons, just not build these ships. It would effectively a negotiated settlement of the Versailles treaty's naval limiations. Only the French refused, so it was no deal in the end. So Germany built the ships, that fit under the Versailles treaty.

IMHO the French did start the cycle. Deutschlands may be reason to worry, but the French reaction was full-sized battleships (compared to the WW1 dreadnought everybody had at ca 25 000 tons) at 35 000 tons fully loaded. A bit of an overkill for counter for a 10-14 000 ton ship if you ask me, and it started a naval arms race.

Scharnorst were an answer to that, they started out orginal as slightly bigger Panzerschiffe, but after the Dunkerques were heard of all things have changed and had become full sized battleships. The design was finalized in around 1934, and all design considerations were revolving around the Dunkerque's specs (already building) and not to spook the British so much.

The Germans ordering the 109, the 111 and the Ju 87 was perfectly normal, what was not so normal was the hundreds of Arado and He 51 fighters built before the 109s and the hundreds of Dornier bombers and Junkers bombers built before the 111 was built in numbers.

Something that shades the pictures is that Germany had no airforce to speak of, while France had hundreds of fighter and bomber already. And it wasn't on friendly terms with Germany. I would say for any other normal country with already an air force it would be extraordinarily to order large amount of aircraft, and would sure start an arms race. For a country that has nothing whatsoever, I believe its hardly the same case.

It should be noted that the Anglo-German naval treaty of 1935, which Britain eagerly signed, allowed Germany a navy at 35% of British tonnage.

They did not sign it so eagerly, Ribbentrop went to them with the German demands (which were OTOH quite reasonable) and pretty much made ultimatum. It didn't threat the British, as they agreed in a fleet 1/3 the size, but it gave Germany a common ground with France, perhaps even advantage because German ships were more modern. The British were much more smart than the French, they accepted what was inevitable anyway, rather than provoking an arms race like the French did.

 

[michaelmaltby]

".... They wanted back as equal partners and have create something realy serious, with what they can deal."

I find much of what you write on this to be truthful ... illustrating the effects of The Law of Unintended Consequences ... but the following statement of yours I seek clarification on, DonL:

"...They wanted back as equal partners and have create something realy serious, with what they can deal..."

I assume the "they" are the leadership of the Weimar ... but "equal partners" .... with whom ... with the Allies ..?? with whom, DonL.

I think what your words really say is that Germany wanted its self-respect, its belief in itself restored, am I right ...?

Well my friend, the Weimar's idea of regaining former status was to flaunt the military restrictions of Versailles wherever and whenever possible. Building and financing tank warfare and air training facilities in the USSR ... one example. Operating U-Boat construction-refurbishment programs [Krupp contracts] for the Dutch and Danes.

The Weimar wanted a successful, strong military, strong industrial based Germany. It just didn't happen fast enough .... for the Nazis.

MM

 

[DonL]

@ michaelmaltby

I assume the "they" are the leadership of the Weimar ... but "equal partners" .... with whom ... with the Allies ..??

Yes

The plan and the goal was that the Panzerschiffe were the bargaining chip or unfriendly spoken, press material to get concessions of the Versaille Treaty or to eliminate the complete Treaty.

Strictly spoken for the Weimarer Republic and it's politican, they were to be game for to not or not biult all the Deutschland Class ships to get other concessions out of the Versaille Treaty on military basis.

The Panzerschiffe with their specs was to get political press material to come back as equal partner to the allies, especially Great Britain and the USA but also France.

 

[parsifal]

we are way off topic here, but anyways....

The question as to whether Germany had aggressive intent or not in its re-armament programs, in my opinion is not best answered by looking at the types or numbers of weapons they were building. That sort of debate, whilst interesting, doesnt get to the very heart of the issue. The questions needed to be asked are

1) What were the intentions of its leadership with regard to the armed forces at their disposal
2) Was the intent driven by foreign aggression/rearmament, or was that foreign rearmement driven by fear of the Nazi regime.

The intentions of the Nazis can be clearly identified. Start with what hitler wrote in Mein Kampf. Then progress to his written memos (which became Directives), and his intent was clear. Because Hitler was an inveterate liar, especially to foreigners there are instances when he would say something like "these are the final territorial demands I have" and then renege almost immediately. But there is no evidence of his lying to his own administration. H intended to go to general war 1943-4, but wanted limited war in 1939 to fulfil what he believed to be an opportunity. However his general prperations from the very beginning were aggressive and violent, and that was a state of affairs clearly discernible to his neighbours. because of the pacifism that existed in these nations, there was a resistance to taking the appropriate action to contain that aggression. The resulot was that the Nazis achieved a head start of several years over their opponent to prepre for war....prepre in terms of the theories of war, prepre in terms of the supporting economic infrastructure, in terms of the military industrial potential, in terms of training and psychological preprations of the nation. It gave Hitler time to quash all opposition to him internally, and complete his betrayal of the German people.

Ive already posted Hitlers memorandum of 19August 1936 that very clearly indicates the aggressive intent of the regime. there are others very similar. Germany's intent to wage an aggressive war against its neighbours is very clear, moreover this was a finding well established after the war during Nuremberg. Germany was guilty of initiating and planning for an aggressive war. End of story.

Germanys neighbours eventually did react to the threat and begin their own re-armament. They re-armed for defensive measures, they re-armed for offensive measures. Thats not aggression, thats waking up, responding to a threat in a rational and predicitable way. To try and argue that these preparation somehow precitpitated the crisis is not only legally incorrect (there is no crime in preparing to meet a threat), it has a moral stench about it as well. The Anglo German Naval Treaty was written up as an act of appeasement not because the British were keen about it, but because it was yet another attemtpt to parley with hitler as a "reasonable" man. The fact that Hitler was not a "reasonable" man, and had no peaceful or rational aspects to his platform, seems to have been overlooked. Britain had some way to go before they realized that.

 

[Shortround6]

we are way off topic here, but anyways....

The question as to whether Germany had aggressive intent or not in its re-armament programs, in my opinion is not best answered by looking at the types or numbers of weapons they were building. That sort of debate, whilst interesting, doesnt get to the very heart of the issue. The questions needed to be asked are

1) What were the intentions of its leadership with regard to the armed forces at their disposal
2) Was the intent driven by foreign aggression/rearmament, or was that foreign rearmement driven by fear of the Nazi regime.

Two very good points. There can be little doubt that the Germans tried very hard to 'emphasis' if not exaggerate their military power. To "bluff" the "aggressors on their borders"
or to win concessions in diplomatic negotiations? There is, again, little doubt as to how they were used regardless of the original intention.
Getting back to the weapons for a moment, 370 or so of the Dornier Do 11,13,23 series and large numbers of JU 52 used as bombers because of the failure of the Dornier series of aircraft leads one to wonder just how many bombers "peaceful" Germany needed to defend itself in 1933-36?