Udet- Germany really did not intend to Invade UK ever.

[Udet]

Mr. Hunter:

Thanks for the kind comments in your other response. I too enjoy discussing like mature people.

Your last comment is not entirely correct Hunter. It was England who first declared war against Germany. I am sure you know this, but in your posting it sounds as if it had been Germany who "started" the war with England.

Whatever the political motivations that caused England to declare war -I know them all- it was England who started the war with Germany.


Now, getting back to the response you produced to my posting is that I can tell you the following:

(i) I agree with you when you affirm Hitler could not leave two powerful enemies alive in his rear -UK and France- before sending his force eastwards. Precisely! That is why he sought peace with both England and France after Poland. Germany had no claims whatsoever to make to the western allies after Poland.

His offerings were put in the dustbin by both the brits and the french; so as you correctly stated, he of course had to deal with such a menace. The armies of 2 enemies staring into his window in the west could not be left unattended. I insist, the armies of 2 enemies who had first declared war on Germany.

You believe Hitler´s acquital of the British Expeditionary Force had purpose other than trying to convince them his gesture was authentic? I do not think he held back a little on the BEF Hunter; all British historians and veterans have admitted the BEF was condemned, awaiting execution.

If the order to stop issued to German divisions around Dunkerque is not evidence enough to demonstrate Hitler never really had the intention to invade let alone occupy England, then I would ask for your explanation to this fact.

Did they declare war on Germany to defend Poland? Perhaps, but the argument will not hold water when one knows of Churchill´s proposal to the soviets in late 1944 to have "preponderance" in Romania when the war ended.

I can assure you Hitler would have liked his entire Wehrmacht and Luftwaffe ramming the east as opposed to see his military getting gradually scattered in regions where he had no interest.

Do you know how many divisons were left to watch over the west after the fall of France and the cancelling of air operations over England in late 1940?

Let´s play with the what ifs a little bit, but if JG 2 and JG 26 -who remained in the west- had been added to the known Order of Battle for Barbarossa in June 1941, then perhaps the VVS would have been wiped out to the very last pilot and aicraft in less than 3 days.

(ii) The french fleet. I agree with you, and that was right what I said. We can not know if the french seamen would have allowed Hitler to get his hands on the powerful french vessels. This turns secondary when we know Hitler did not make any claims to the french fleet -again, other than assuring it would not end in the hands of the Brits waging war against Germany-.

I recall an opinion for which I have no verification saying Hitler, right after the fall of France, when asked what to do with the french fleet, responded it was his desire to see the french sailors burning their ships thus putting an end to the issue.

(iii) The U-boat campaign. To claim Germany was trying to starve England out in 1939-41 is way out of the line. Again, I will stick to a simple fact: they had declared war against Germany, and refused peace offerings issued.

I will pretend I walk in Hitler´s shoes. I am a man making authentic political offerings to Great Britain. They reject them all. Although my intentions towards them are honest, I am no hummingbird, so I will punch them back. I digress, my nation is in a state of war with them. I will of course launch my submarines to inflict as much damage as possible, and to put the heaviest pressure possible on both the Brits and the French (1939-1940).

By the time Germany issued its second peace offering to England in 1940, the number of the U-boats was nowhere near sufficient to achieve anything such as starving England out Hunter.

Also as you may recall, by September of 1940, the USA loaned 50 four stacked destroyers to England. What would you think Hitler´s reaction would be?

Furthermore, do not forget the USA although "neutral" was directly involved in the war. October 31, 1941, a skipper of the USA navy pushed the limits, and his vessel, the destroyer USS Reuben James got sent straight to the bottom of the Atlantic by U-552, taking almost the entire crew with her.

(As interesting note, the executioner of that doomed destroyer was Konteradmiral Erich Topp who passed away hardly a month ago).

Hitler´s campaing in the Atlantic was the natural outcome of the events of 1939 -first against both France and England-, and 1940 after the french defeat.

 

[plan_D]

Let me get this straight, you blame Britain for World War II? And Germany was perfectly innocent?

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Sorry Udet. Hitler started WW2, not England. England did what was needed and had to be done. Someone had to stop Hitler, he was a madman in his visions. He wanted the annhialation of all Jews, and he invaded Poland which England and sworn to protect.

Hitler was not the nice man that you seem to try and make him out to be.

 

[Udet]

Gentlemen:

I will throw my response in the form of a question:

Are you going to affirm the facts I commented here are false, untrue or unaccurate?

Germany did not intend to invade England; the case is sound and supported with evidence as strong as the one presented to prove the contrary.

I´ve been telling this for more than 3 years now: inspite of the allegedly overwhelming evidence presented to prove England was the next conquest that would be added to the German trophy room, Hitler did not want to do such a thing.

None of the combatant nations of WWII is free of guilt, at all. None is innocent.

Adler, no one is trying to present Hitler as a nice person.

Politicians are not nice people. Politicians have interests, and will do everything necessary to preserve them. They pursue outlined goals. Whatever the cost they will try to achieve them.

Hitler was not nice; Stalin was not nice; Churchill was not nice; Rossevelt was not nice; Truman was not nice; Antonescu was not nice; Mussolini was not nice; De Gaulle was not nice.

Talking of very un-nice people there you have Mr. Eisenhower. Not a commander but a politician as proved later after the war (by the way, U.S. army officers and veterans have told me he was 100% an incompetent soldier).

Politicians have been like this since ancient times.


What we should acknowledge is very clear fact:

By the late 1930´s the world saw a critical arrangement of parts. When the global situation of the world is just like that of the 1930s the outcome can only be the kind of catastrophe nowadays known as World War Two.

Nothing different could have happened.

There were just too many powers very close to each other, each with an agenda to pursue.

In one corner we had the Britsh Empire, that although showing signs of decline, was still a world power; in other corner there was Hitler´s Reich, seeking expansion eastwards; the french, still a colonial power likewise playing their role in the continent; slightly to the east we had smiley Dzugashvili´s domain of terror seeking expansion; the USA also a power in some sort of isolation; the far east had the Japanese who were too reading their own procedure manual.

I am not so sure if the world will experience such a positioning of powers again. Perhaps not in the near future. Who knows for sure.

The fact is, and you have to believe this, when there are just too many powers seeking supremacy you have a contest at hand.

This has occurred many times throughout history. See the ancient state-cities of Greece. Thebes, Sparta, Corinth, Athens...some of them would be allies one day to become enemies later on. It was war after war after war...see the catastrophe that fell upon Athens when the Peloponessus war came to an end. The consequences of the Peloponessus war, were for the system of that era, a very similar thing to what Europe experienced after WWII.

The other world power of the era: Cyrus´ Persian Empire, the achemenid dinasty. Whether a direct military intervention against the greeks or persian gold financing wars between greeks, the persians presence was there.

East the mediterranean there was Karchedon gaining power as well, and also playing its role.

Later on Filippo II, pulled Macedonia out of the dark, and his reign emerged as a new power in the arena. First he beat the greeks on the battlefield; later on his son, Alexander III would put an end to the persian empire.

That is how the world works.

Adler, we do know who drew first blood in the war, but I will insist on the erratic and contradictory foreign policies both England and France implemented when Fall Weiss was launched.

The questions:

(1) Why did they only declare a state of war against Germany leaving the USSR outside the war declaration package?

If two individuals conspire together to murder some person, and they do it, who would you try? just one of them? or both guys? (Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact)

(2) After the fall of Poland, the next offensive move in the continet was carried out by the soviets; their predatory attack against Finland, known in the present-day world as the Winter War.

Why, again, did France and England did not do anything that we could call "material" to show the soviets they meant what they were saying?

I am talking about positive affirmative action against the soviets and not the void and blanket words they launched.

(3) Are you sure they declared war on Germany to "defend Poland"? Do you know, as I commented in my last posting, of Churchill´s juicy offerings made to Stalin in 1944, so his expanding reign would have "preponderance" over what you could call a vast extension of land?

I will end my posting by affirming the foreign policy of the Reich was consistent. And please, do not misinterpret my words; by "consistent" I am trying to say a coherent set of ideas being implemented and not "ethic", "legal" or "politically correct".

The foreign policy of both France and England during 1939-1940 simply stumbled. It was contradictory and very erratic. To make a prettier choice of words I will say their policies were like autumn leaves blown by the forests wind. First they are moved in one direction, then after a brief moment they are moved in a diametrically opposed direction.

Gotta close this posting. Might add more in following days. Now out of my place; saturday night: electro/dark party.

Cheers.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Udet no matter how you try to church it up. Hitler was evil. Did he not try to erradicate the Jews? Did he not start WW2? Was England not Just in declaring war on Germany? Was his politics not responsible for the most devastating war in the History of the Human race and was he not responsible for the single most loss of life in the History of the Human Race.

You can not church it up.

Yes poloticians are not nice people, no one says they are however I have one question for you. Did Roosevelt or Churchhill attempt to destroy a whole population of people? NO

 

[plan_D]

Where is the evidence that Hitler did not want to invade England? It's been said time and time again; Why did he build up barges? Why were plans written up? Why did he waste planes attacking Britain? Why did he have occupation plans?

For the answer to your question, why did Britain not declare war on the Soviet Union too? Why did Britain invade Norway, Udet?

The Anglo-French invasion of Norway was to gain Narvick to ship Swedish Iron. It was also to gain a land route into Finland to support them with men and arms against the Soviet Union. Hitler thought this as excellent, but was not willing to have British troops on the European continent.

So, yes, Udet - Britain were willing to go to war with both Germany and the Soviet Union.

 

[Jabberwocky]

I've rarely seen so much bull dust posted on one page of any forum, ever.

Couple of points Udet:

1. von Runstead stopped the pazers in front of Dunkirk, not Hitler. It was done solely for military reasons, not political ones.

2. Nevil Chamberlain was Prime Minister ofGreat Britain when it declared war on Germany, not Winston Churchill. It did so becuase it was leagally and morally obligated to do so by treaty, international law and its historical friendships. Churchill is not Chamberlian, though it might pain you to recognise that fact.

3. Eisenhower planned, organised, ran and supervised the LARGEST seaborne invasion of all time. He also oversaw running of a 11 month campaign commanding a force of some 3 million men. He wasn't as gifted a field commander as Rommel, Montgomery, Patton, Mountbatten or Zukhov, but as a military organiser, HE HOLDS NO EQUAL IN HISTORY. To call him "a 100% an incompetent solider" is a complete falacy.

4. There were several strong motions in the UK parliment to declare war on the Soviet Union. The were overruled by Churchill, a politcal realist if ever there was one, who knew what his nation was capable of taking on. You don't fight two enemies, if one of them is a potential friend. Churchill was NEVER a fan of communism in general, and definately not of Stalin in particular. But he was wise enought to see which battles could be fought properly, and what was best for the rest of Europe.

Finland was neither treatied or allied to Great Britain. Therefore, Great Britain wasn't obliged to do anything if it was invaded. If the Soviet Union had invaded Finland in 1935, the Anglo-French reaction would of been largely similar to waht it was in 1939, because of the geopolitics of the stuation.

Looking at if from a WW2 perspective, in 1944 the Soviet Union didn't invade Poland, they liberated it. Much in the same way that the western Allied powers didn't invade France, Holland and Belgium in 1944, they liberated them. In western eyes, a "free, liberated" Poland under the Soviet sphere of influence, was better than a conqured and enslaved Poland under the German sphere of influence.

5. Hitler completely misjudged both France's and Great Britain's determination and will to fight. They were sick of seeing Europe's bully-boy trying to push everyone else around. Austria, Chezchsolvakia, the Sudeten land. They declared war on Germany because they were legally bound to do so, it was the RIGHT thing to do and an aggressive Germany lead by Hitler was a threat to the entirety of European civilisation.

If France had suddenly invaded Italy in 1938 without a declaration of war, do you think that Germany would of been correct in answering its treaty and military obligations and declaring war on France?

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Good post there jabberwockey and I agree with most of it.

3. Eisenhower planned, organised, ran and supervised the LARGEST seaborne invasion of all time. He also oversaw running of a 11 month campaign commanding a force of some 3 million men. He wasn't as gifted a field commander as Rommel, Montgomery, Patton, Mountbatten or Zukhov, but as a military organiser, HE HOLDS NO EQUAL IN HISTORY. To call him "a 100% an incompetent solider" is a complete falacy.

Agreed 100% and what just said explains why.

In western eyes, a "free, liberated" Poland under the Soviet sphere of influence, was better than a conqured and enslaved Poland under the German sphere of influence.

Not so sure on that because that is one reason for the cold war.

They were sick of seeing Europe's bully-boy trying to push everyone else around. Austria, Chezchsolvakia, the Sudeten land. They declared war on Germany because they were legally bound to do so, it was the RIGHT thing to do and an aggressive Germany lead by Hitler was a threat to the entirety of European civilisation.

While I agree with most of this and do agree that Hitler was threat to European civilisation, some of these lands that you talk about were Germanys in there own right. Sudeten Land, Danzig, and several other places that were taken in the beginning of the war or before war was declared were rightfully Germany's and taken from them after WW1. Does this make Germany right though? No.

 

[Gnomey]

Good points Jabberwocky, I agree with them.

 

[Udet]

"I've rarely seen so much bull dust posted on one page of any forum, ever."

Possibly because you had not yet come across someone who has done his homework.

(a) What was all that Chamberlain-Churchill thing about? You believe I believed it was Churchill who declared the war against Germany? Whoever did it -and I know who did- does not play any influence on my comments.


(b) So it was von Rundstedt who issued the order to stop around Dunkerque, for military reasons?

What could such military reasons be?

Whatever the answers might be, and I say this with all due respect, they will be wrong.

There were no military issues that could hinder the Wehrmacht from either annihilating or capturing the BEF. Accepted by veterans whom I´ve met that admitted a generalized moral disarray and panic in the mouse trap.

(c) Putting aside the fact there is something very bad about the face of that individual Eisenhower...well, I said what I was told by men who have served and serve in the USA military; in fact they said things far, far more terrible about the man, but it is not an issue here. Just one point, that he was appointed the chief of all allied armed forces in Europe, and that the war was won does not necessarily make him "skilled" or "wise".


(d) All the arguments laid down to attempt explaining why England declared war only against Germany, having the Soviet Union as an ally are weak to say the least.


Now, of course all British guys in here will agree with you Mr. Jabberwocky -while disagreeing with me-, the hard fact of all this is that none of them, absolutely none of them will be able to dispute the facts I have commented here as untrue.


(e) I am not sure if Hitler "completely" misjudged France´s and England´s determination and will to fight. He was no fool; a gambler suits better here. From the offset he knew his policies in the continent could mean having both France and England as enemies, although it was not his goal to wage war against them.

Many of his communications with Admiral Dönitz and Admiral Raeder in 1939 can help you understanding that he wanted no war with the west, but that it could happen.




And please, do not adopt the "hard-line" here; I am not the one "holding the truth". What I do have is exactly the same you have there in your books. Recorded facts.

Plan: Yes, I have Hitler´s directive for Seelowe -in 4 languages-; I have a collection of photos of the motley fleet gathered for the alleged invasion; I have the photo of German officers staring at England in the distance from the continent´s coast; the alleged order of battle...

I will insist: pressure. The psychologic factor playing its role too. You think the Germans did not know of the psychologic conditions in England when the BEF was allowed to escape the mousetrap?

What could the mood be in the island when so many people witnessed the powerful BEF arriving all shocked and wearing only their trousers to British ports?

Who had the upper hand? Whatever the fighting spirit of the British people could be, German had the finger on the trigger.

Peace in the west was Hitler´s most convinient item to "comfortably" switch east.

Now we know his gambles did not turn out as he had in mind.

 

[Jabberwocky]

I do so enjoy our little chats Udet.

Reasons for von Runsteads decision to halt German forces:

1.The May 22nd telephone call from Colonel Schmundt who reported that the 7th Panzer Division had been attacked by "five British divisions" as well as "heavy French armour" engaging and destroying lead panzer reconnisance elements.

Von Runstead was rightfully fearful of the unknown, particularly given the poor intelligence he had been given. German High Command estimated that the British had landed 4 additional infantry divisions and 2 additional armoured divisions to reinforce the BEF in early May. In actuality the British had only landed the 1st Armoured and the 52nd Lowland Division in May, as well as elements of the 20th and 30th Infantry Brigades.

2. Strong localised defence at Blaireville and St Orine throught May 20-21 and the counter-attacks at Arras against the 7th Panzer division on 21st caused concern about the strength of the defences around the French ports. The 6th Panzer division reported strong resistance by one French armoured divison and a French infantry divison (actually an understrength battalion of French troops reinforced with a few tanks). The Arras counter attack made by 2 British battalions was reported as a 5 division attack. The 8th Panzer reported increasingly heavy contact with French units to the south.

Despite the fact that around Dunkirk there were just 4 British and 2 French divisions against some 17 German divisons, German estimated were that they were facing some 9 or 10 divisions directly in front of them. With the possibility of a further 2 British armoured divisions arriving in the immediate future, and strenghtening French resistance, von Runstead though that consolidating in the north and then swinging south far wiser than continuing the attack towards the Channel ports.

3. German High Command, and especially Hitler, were afraid of a massed French counter attack from the south. By the 20th the Panzer columns had outrun most of the other combat units as well as their supply and maintence formations. They had stuck their neck out advancing so far and so fast, and von Runstead was afraid of having it chopped off.

4. The logistics, service and supply situation dictated a halt. von Runstead suspected that Guderian's units were no longer completely effective when mixed reports of the Arras counter attack and attacks on Calais and Bolougne reached him. He had been willing to call the gamble for a while, but military necessity and the apparent situation dictated that he called a halt to the tanks. Up to 1/3 of all tanks were either out of action or undergoing mechanical repair.

Von Runstead ordered the Panzer colums to halt on the evening of the 23rd. Hitler didn't have any say in the decision, and actually wasn't informed until the afternoon on the 24th when he visited von Runstead's headquaters.

Aerial reconnisance on the 26th revealed that the BEF was preparing to evacuate. However, Goering assured Hitler that the LuftWaffe could both block the port to evacuation and cripple the Royal Navy was it attempted to evacuate British and French forces. German infantry forces, swinging north in an attempt towards Bolougne suffered heavy casualties when the 50th and 5th Infantry Divisions threw in everything they had to stop them.

If you look at the situation (overextended units, stiffening defence and counterattacks, British, French and Belgain forces still fighting, fear of a southern counter attack, unknown number of British reinforcements) von Runsteads decision was the right thing to do in terms of the bigger picture of operations. Yes, it was a godsend to the BEF and yes, many panzer unit commanders felt hard done by. But the fact remains that it was a military decision made for the correct reasons at the time. Only with hindsight can we marvel at it.

 

[Jabberwocky]

In western eyes, a "free, liberated" Poland under the Soviet sphere of influence, was better than a conqured and enslaved Poland under the German sphere of influence.

Not so sure on that because that is one reason for the cold war.

Only in the post-war world. While there was a deep-steated distrust of Communism in some sections of the west, it never approached anything like that seen from the late 1940's onwards.

There was a positive prevailing goodwill towards Russia in the mid 1940's. "Uncle Joe" and the Red Army was on our side (whatever that was) and was kicking the Germans out of Eastern Europe. Given the lack of transperancy about communism, and the general political idealism of the time (as most aptly displayed by Roosevelt at Yalta), the cold war feelings about the Soviet Union haven't taken root yet.

They were sick of seeing Europe's bully-boy trying to push everyone else around. Austria, Chezchsolvakia, the Sudeten land. They declared war on Germany because they were legally bound to do so, it was the RIGHT thing to do and an aggressive Germany lead by Hitler was a threat to the entirety of European civilisation.

While I agree with most of this and do agree that Hitler was threat to European civilisation, some of these lands that you talk about were Germanys in there own right. Sudeten Land, Danzig, and several other places that were taken in the beginning of the war or before war was declared were rightfully Germany's and taken from them after WW1. Does this make Germany right though? No.

While I agree that Germany was correct in moving back into the Sudetenland, futher moves into Czechsolvakia were provocative and warlike in the extreeme. The Anchsluss (sorry about the spelling) of Germany and Austria smacks to me more like standover tactics than a freindly merger.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

I agree with you, they should not have moved further into Sudetenland. I think they were right in taking the lands back that belonged to them, but everything else was an act of war.

 

[the lancaster kicks ass]

I think they were right in taking the lands back that belonged to them

i don't mean to start a fight or anything but did the land really begin to them? how is land most often won? war. how is land lost? war. the germans lost the land because they lost the war, the way i see it that means the land doesn't belong to them, although having said that i will agree that the leaders were useless at dividing up the land after WWI...........

 

[Hunter368]

Sorry Udet and Jabber,
I have been away from this talk for a while. I have read what I have missed out on. It is hard for me to make as many points that you both have said as I would like to so I will not go point by point. But to make a long story short I agree with you both on some parts.

Udet agree with you on alot of your points (not 100% of them just more than most people here), they are not the main stream ideas or the popular choices etc but we are not here for that. Thats what I like about you, you don't really care, but you still stand up for your ideas. Well done. The Allies were very convenient in their moral choices of who to declare war on and who not to. They turned a blind eye when they wanted to at times. Russia under Stalin rule was almost as bad as Nazi Germany under Hitler for being evil.

Jabber you are right on some of your points also. Yes the reason why the panzers did not crush BEF was not just political. There reason to believe
that they were over stretched and in danger.

Udet you and I, I think see the whole Germany invading UK the same. Did Hitler always dream on invading it? no Did he respect the UK? yes Did it become necessary to invade a enemy once they did not surrender? yes Then who started WW2? Well yes technically France and UK started it first by declaring war on Germany but they were justified to do so. If you see a family member being beaten up by a guy on the street, you are justified to beat him until he stops. Thats what UK and France tried to do, Germany was taking land and more land they decided to try and stop him by honoring their treaty with Poland.

Sorry for being away for so long I will watch this post alittle more carefully and keep up. Later

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

I think they were right in taking the lands back that belonged to them

i don't mean to start a fight or anything but did the land really begin to them? how is land most often won? war. how is land lost? war. the germans lost the land because they lost the war, the way i see it that means the land doesn't belong to them, although having said that i will agree that the leaders were useless at dividing up the land after WWI...........

I can see how you believe you this and I can completly understand it. The only reason I see it this way is because for instance people like Grandmother were driven from there homes when this happened and when Germany retook them, they got there homes back. I do however understand what you are talking about and can somewhat agree with you also.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

I think they were right in taking the lands back that belonged to them

i don't mean to start a fight or anything but did the land really begin to them? how is land most often won? war. how is land lost? war. the germans lost the land because they lost the war, the way i see it that means the land doesn't belong to them, although having said that i will agree that the leaders were useless at dividing up the land after WWI...........

I can see how you believe you this and I can completly understand it. The only reason I see it this way is because for instance people like Grandmother were driven from there homes when this happened and when Germany retook them, they got there homes back. I do however understand what you are talking about and can somewhat agree with you also.

 

[Jabberwocky]

Sorry Udet and Jabber,


Udet you and I, I think see the whole Germany invading UK the same. Did Hitler always dream on invading it? no Did he respect the UK? yes Did it become necessary to invade a enemy once they did not surrender? yes Then who started WW2? Well yes technically France and UK started it first by declaring war on Germany but they were justified to do so. If you see a family member being beaten up by a guy on the street, you are justified to beat him until he stops. Thats what UK and France tried to do, Germany was taking land and more land they decided to try and stop him by honoring their treaty with Poland.

I'd say that Germany, not France or Britain, started WW2 by invading Poland when it knew exactly the consequences of what would happen if it did so. The Western allies were not the aggressors, Germany was.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Absolutely Jabberwockey. There is no way to hide the fact or to cover it up.

 

[Hunter368]

Sorry Udet and Jabber,


Udet you and I, I think see the whole Germany invading UK the same. Did Hitler always dream on invading it? no Did he respect the UK? yes Did it become necessary to invade a enemy once they did not surrender? yes Then who started WW2? Well yes technically France and UK started it first by declaring war on Germany but they were justified to do so. If you see a family member being beaten up by a guy on the street, you are justified to beat him until he stops. Thats what UK and France tried to do, Germany was taking land and more land they decided to try and stop him by honoring their treaty with Poland.

I'd say that Germany, not France or Britain, started WW2 by invading Poland when it knew exactly the consequences of what would happen if it did so. The Western allies were not the aggressors, Germany was.

I agree 100%, but the point I was trying to make was that Udet was or is talking literally who started WW2 first. That is techically UK and France but we all know like you stated that really it was German. So yes I agree with you here and on the post you quoted.