- Thread starter
-
- #81
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
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.
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.
???????? 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!
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.
???????? Tirpitz laid down Oct 1936, launched April 1937;
Bismarck laid down July 1936,
Scheer planned for in 1931,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.
Bismarck and Tirpitz were response to French Richeliue laid down 22 October 1935, Jean Bart, in December 1936.
@ 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I assume the "they" are the leadership of the Weimar ... but "equal partners" .... with whom ... with the Allies ..??
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.