The German heroes who helped Allies against Hitler (2 Viewers)

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

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.
 
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.
 
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... :lol:

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]
 
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 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)
 
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...
 
So they wanted to land in Norway to help the Finns... :lol:

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 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]

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

Okay, let's see...

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?.

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.
Your question...which you answer yourself below.
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.
 
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.
 
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 ?
 
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.......
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back