The German heroes who helped Allies against Hitler (1 Viewer)

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

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. :D
 
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. :D

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: 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.
 
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! :lol:
 
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.
 
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.
 
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).
 
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.
 
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
 
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

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.
 
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.
 
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
 

Attachments

  • book.jpg
    book.jpg
    176.8 KB · Views: 92
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
 
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.
 
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
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back