WWII air war myths

[GrauGeist]

thats why its important never to let the little lies take hold

Strongly agree...

Sometimes the truth makes a person uncomfortable and there is a tendency these days to take the sharp edges off of the truth so that everyone can remain in their comfort zone.

The problem is, that the sharp edges of the truth is what prevents society from falling into the same trap over and over again.

It seems to be a human trait to look for a target to place blame on when there's difficult circumstances: Christians in Rome, Chinese in California Goldfields, Jews repeatedly through history and the list sadly goes on.

The moment history is altered, it opens Pandora's box.

 

[bobbysocks]

As well as Argentina, Peru, Chile, Uruguay, Paraguay each had German residents so easy to blend in.

Many were helped to get there by the Roman Catholic Church.

that was the odessa project....as many as 9000 ( or more ) escaped to SA...brazil was also big. supposedly juan peron of argentine sold 10,000 blank passports to odessa and ~800 passports were given to them by the vatican. but then again how many were given clean slates if they came to the us and uk to share their expertise in various fields...??

 

[GregP]

In your post 178 however, you say that WE feel for Hitler's stuff at the time ... who is "we?"

Some in Germany and elsewhere did, but a hell of a lot of people didn't. There were Nazi sympathizers in many places before the Holocaust took place. A lot may have been due to sympathy for the poverty caused by the war reparations clause in the Treaty of Versailles. When the Nazi atrocities came to light after the war, there were very few Nazi sympathizers remaining. Did they still exist? Yes, else the Nazis could not have fled to anywhere for safety. But you didn't find too many.

It is a sad note that society puts up with them. Your notes above indicate anti-Semitism is on the rise in Europe. They don't indicate a rise in Nazi thinking; they indicate a rise in anti-Semitism. I wonder if anyone has done a study to find the root cause of European anti-Semitism. I know a lot of Jewish people here in the USA and, to date, none have done anything to harm ME in any way. Are European Jews so different from that? What exactly are they doing to garner all this ill feeling?

If the real answer is, "nothing," then the anti-Semitic Europeans need some serious soul searching to contemplate what is wrong within themselves. Most of the Europeans I have met have been very nice. Out of the 120 - 150 I have met and interacted with at the Planes of Fame Air Museum over the last 8 years or so there have been maybe 2 - 3 that I could have done without meeting. That is not an unusual ratio and, in fact, says a lot positive about Europeans. Now we didn't discuss Jews ... we were mostly talking about aircraft. But I spent enough time and went to lunch with enough to have had many one hour plus long conversations. Almost all were pleasant.

Statistics is a mathematical science that depends upon rigorous collection of random data. One of the potentially really bad things about polls is the way the samples are collected. If you don't work very hard to get a truly random sample, you get skewed results. For instance, if you conduct your polls at large shopping centers, you get a classically skewed view of the population because most people don't shop at large shopping centers ... the large shopping centers attract a certain tripe of clientele that is not representative of the population ... it is representative of mall shoppers.

So if the polls you quote above were conducted by people with an agenda in anti-Semitism, you have to ask yourself how representative of true European anti-Semitic attitudes the polls are. I would not claim the polls were wrong unless I investigated them personally and concluded so myself.

The Anti-Defamation League was founded in 1913 "to stop the defamation of the Jewish people and to secure justice and fair treatment to all." Now the nation's premier civil rights/human relations agency, ADL fights anti-Semitism and all forms of bigotry, defends democratic ideals and protects civil rights for all.

An organization created to fight anti-Semitism would hardly be the logical choice to come forward with a glowing report, would it? Perhaps the rise in European anti-Semitism coincides with a large influx of Muslim immigrants into Europe? I don't really know for sure. I advocate tolerating any religion as long as that religion recognizes the right of all people to practice other than that religion.

What should happen if a particular religion doesn't recognize that right might best be left to somewhere other than a WWII aviation forum. Should a society put up with it legally or ethically? Therein lies a considerable discussion with little or nothing to do with the WWII aircraft we all love.

We may have very similar feelings. I could have a pretty good discussion with you about it elsewhere but I think not in here.

 

[parsifal]

Some in Germany and elsewhere did, but a hell of a lot of people didn't. There were Nazi sympathizers in many places before the Holocaust took place. A lot may have been due to sympathy for the poverty caused by the war reparations clause in the Treaty of Versailles. When the Nazi atrocities came to light after the war, there were very few Nazi sympathizers remaining. Did they still exist? Yes, else the Nazis could not have fled to anywhere for safety. But you didn't find too many.

belief that hitler was an honourable man that people could trust and do business with was a LOT wider than you are suggesting. even Winston Churchill, in the beginning, thought hitler was someone that could achieve a lot of good things. Rapidly thinking rational people began to have the ir suspicions, but sadly, as a generalization, this is not true of Germany. Hitler had this knack of keeping most people in the dark of his true intentions, or the wider picture, the result was that many groups supported hitler, believing they were part of his "special interest" groups. It is believed, for example that durung the 1932 elections, a majority of Jews voted for Hitler, because apparently Hitler was saying quietly on the side to Jewish leaders ("dont worry about all that other stuff....im just saying that to pander to the crowd...i really need you guys so dont worry about it!' they didnt.

I disagree that the majority of germans either did not believe in Hitler, or acquiesced to his lies and deceit until very nearly the end. it persisted somewhat after the war, but was gradually worn away by the denazification program, and by German society itself. This is not meant to be an indictement of germany today. its a vastly different place to 1938.

It is a sad note that society puts up with them. Your notes above indicate anti-Semitism is on the rise in Europe. They don't indicate a rise in Nazi thinking; they indicate a rise in anti-Semitism. I wonder if anyone has done a study to find the root cause of European anti-Semitism. I know a lot of Jewish people here in the USA and, to date, none have done anything to harm ME in any way. Are European Jews so different from that? What exactly are they doing to garner all this ill feeling?

Antisemitism and neonazism are different, and yet they go hand in hand. if you are an anti semite, chances are, you will also relate to some or all neo-nazi beliefs. its not just the thugs running these political parties, it includes those who see something and say "I can agree with some of that". And the facts are far right, neo fascist movements in Europe are on the rise as far as attracting votes. Just have a look at how many seats Golden Dawn secured in the greek parliament. Similar things are happening across Europe. How many of these guys believe hitler was a good guy? ive no idea, but I bet its a lot.

Last statement is worrying greg. Except for their religion, Jews are no "different" to any other persecuted minority. Except that Jews have more or less been the subject of persecution since the resurrection. Its not their fault they are persecuted. its the attitudes towards them that do that, and the fact they are different is not reason to allow or tolerate prejudice

Statistics is a mathematical science that depends upon rigorous collection of random data. One of the potentially really bad things about polls is the way the samples are collected. If you don't work very hard to get a truly random sample, you get skewed results. For instance, if you conduct your polls at large shopping centers, you get a classically skewed view of the population because most people don't shop at large shopping centers ... the large shopping centers attract a certain tripe of clientele that is not representative of the population ... it is representative of mall shoppers.

Random population sampling is part of my current job, so I do get that, and you are right. I have no idea if the sampling done for that wiki article was rigorous or not, however i do know that more than one survery, from completely different sources and data collection are all coming up with the same general trends. It would require a lot more research I agree, but im satisfied the data sets are accurate enough to draw some generalised conclusions.

So if the polls you quote above were conducted by people with an agenda in anti-Semitism, you have to ask yourself how representative of true European anti-Semitic attitudes the polls are. I would not claim the polls were wrong unless I investigated them personally and concluded so myself.

There will always be bias in the sampling techniques, it unavoidable, and the person or organization undertakling the research is most definately relevant. however , separate independant studies are being conducted into this sort of thing all the time, across the world, by secular and non-secular organizations. Most credible are the various university studies that are being done into this phenomena. Are we all dedicated left wingers with the express intent of painting an innaccurate picture of national moods and trends. if that is the case, then lord help us. it means our long term urban planning and resource allocations are all skewed by dodgy social networks planning. i would suggest greg,, that you need to be a little more trusting and get out a bit more.

 

[GregP]

The statement that you find worrying might be so if taken on its own, out of context. It was preceeded with. "Are European Jews so different?" meaning are THEY doing something to harm people? I seriously doubt it, but am not exactly up on internal European intrigue ... largely due to its non-coverage in our press rather than from any disinterest on my part. I wish our press covered the rest of the world better than it does.

I was seeking to point out that persecution should not be tolerated. Political activism should be against a behavior, not a race or religion ... unless that religion is intolerant and causing civil discord in a free society. In other words, if something is harming the body politic, then maybe it should be expelled. If there is no action against the people by a group, then persecution against that group should not be tolerated.

I find that reasonable, but it's only my opinion.

 

[parsifal]

I think we are pretty okay on this. The point that led to this was never meant to be the proliferation of anti-semitism, or even the rise of neo fascist beliefs. The starting point was whether ther is a credible basis for my claim that the myth that hitler was good was alive, or just my imagination at work. Adler doesnt think that it is a credible myth, and i do respect that pov. it has some validity. I believe differently. ther is no easy way to say which opinion is right, because were are trying to gauge peoples opinions here. So in the context of this forum, people will need to form their own opinions I guess.

Maybe i should have a think about the hellcat issue. havent forgotten, just havent had time to respond.

 

[Garyt]

My Grandparents were living in Germany in the 30's-40's (My mother was a child and lived with them as well of course).

My Grandfather thought Hitler was a good thing at first, but by the late 30's he as well as a fair amount of other Germans were not as enthralled with Hitler anymore. He was speaking out against Hitler to someone where he worked at, was picked up by the SS and kept a few days. My Grandmother thought he was dead, but he was let go after some interrogation, intimidation and a little physical beating.

This is a tad bit of a tangent, but he who wins also writes history. What the loser does are considered war crimes, the winner is considered a hero for these same things. Look at Donitz for instance - Nimitz even testified in his defense saying the US subs operated in the same manner, and Donitz received a life sentence. It was probably the thought by many Allied Commanders that he was unjustly imprisoned that led to his early release.

Torpedoing Ships and not rescuing survivors was a war crime - how about bombing innocent civilians, particularily if the intent of such bombing was to induce a fireball that would consume much of the civilian population? Or even worse, the terror weapon of the 20th century, the atomic bomb? Somehow I think killing over 200,000 civilian men women and children with 2 bombs is more of a war crime than the Bataan death March, a forced march without provisions. At least those on the Bataan death march only had about a 7% chance of dying - those in Hiroshima and Nagasaki I would not think were as fortunate.

Oh well, I digress

 

[GregP]

Actually I think Hitler may habe neen perceived as a pretty good thing while he was building up the German economy from dire poverty brought on by the Treaty of Versilles to a position of respectability again. I knew a woman (married to a good friend of mine, they were both friends) who was a 16 year old Luftwaffe airplame spotter when the war ended. She said that when people were starving, Hitler at least brought food back to the tables in enough supply to make him preferrable to starving. So people supported him even while disagreeing with some things he said.

The first thing he did when he came to power was to disarm the civilians and by the time the average German KNEW what he was, the German military had the only firearms in the country, they were in a war that none of the civilians wanted or much understood, and if you disagreed very loudly, your food supply was cut off and you might be imprisoned or killed. She said that by mid 1942, virtually every German civilian knew they had made a mistake supporting Hitler but were pretty much powerless to do anything about it. You can't fight Mauser K-98's and trained soldiers with pitchforks very successfully. Some near the concentration camps knew what was going on from the smell, but others who were farther away and had little communication with those near the camps, generally didn't. It's not like the internet was around and news was fast ... it was released by Nazi propaganda Czars and only the official news was heard on the radio or seen in print. Word of mouth was around but quite slow compared with today when people get around a lot. In WWII Germany, people could be born, grow up, live and die all in the same town. By the time it became more generally known, she said that many were certain the entire country would be killed by the advancing Allies when the war was lost despite the fact that the German civilians had nothing to say about what decisions were made in the Reich.

Their opinions were not solicited nor were they given any thought or consideration. Hitler was in absolute power and simply did whatever he wanted by issuing orders, not by asking opinions of others.

I asked her about becomming a Nazi and she said that when her family joined the party, the alternatives were to join, survive and have food to eat or not join and starve slowly while being ostracized by the people in power, imprisoned or worse. Her duties were to man a tower and report by phone line the planes she saw with the approximate number, type, speed, heading, and altitude. She did that for about 6 months until the war ended, and at least got fed daily while she was in the tower and was not acosted by the troops since she was in German uniform.

So I think there was some amount of support for Hitler early on when his entire agenda was not generally known to the world at large. After it was, pretty much after the war had been won in Europe, much of that support waned. It took the end of the war and the liberation of some of the camps to make anyone much realize what had been going on and to what extent within the Reich. I think "Mein Kampf" was translated into English in 1933, but not very many copies were sold or distributed. I don't think Hitler settled on extermination of Jews until sometimes in the mid-1930's. Up until the war he was a political animal and had not yet become the worst criminal of the 20th century.

In fact, it was probably only after about 1939 that Hitler departed from being at least somewhat seen as "reasonable" in many circles. By that time, WWII had started and there was little to be done except see what happened to the world as the war spread. During the war, Allied news was also censored, but not quite to the extent it was in Germany.

Today, 80 years later and well after any classification should have expired, does anyone really think they know everything that happend, why, and who knew or planned it? The Allies committed what might be called atrocities, too, but the winning side rarely prosecutes itslef much as the people who make up a layoff list at work very rarely add their own name to it.

 

[tyrodtom]

Germany's population in 1940 was 80.6 million people, at it's peak, the Nazi party had 8.5 million members.

Roughly 1/2 half of that 80 million people would have been of adult age where they could have been party members.

It's sort of revealing that when faced with the same choices as your acquaintances Greg, 4 out of 5 Germans chose NOT to join the Nazi party.

And I think you should do some research on the German gun laws of the 30's, especially the gun laws passed in 1938, everything put out by the NRA isn't necessarily true.

 

[GrauGeist]

A quick look at German firearm regulations

1919 - "Regulations on Weapons Ownership" legislation enacted, which stated that anyone in possession of a firearm of any kind and/or ammunition of any kind, for any circumstances, would be imprisoned up to 5 years AND fined 100,000 marks.
1928 - "Law on Firearms and Ammunition" legislation relaxed the law of 1919 to a certain degree, by repealing the law of 1919 but put into place firearm licensing that was closely regulated. In this law, a citizen could own a firearm by permit. They could buy/sell firearms by permit. They could carry a firearm by permit. They could manufacture firearms by permit. Any firearm manufacturer or dealer was required to keep a record of customers, complete with weapon serial numbers and provide these records to police annually.
1938 - "German Weapons Act" was a new law that superseded the 1928 Law on Firearms and Ammunition act with several revisions and additions. In order to obtain any permit, the citizen had to prove their need for a firearm and had to prove their good civic character. It removed restrictions on long-guns and ammunition while hand-gun ownership remained closely regulated. It changed the legal age of possession from 20 years old to 18 and extended permit validation from 1 year to 3. The 1928 provision for tight record keeping was carried over, emphasizing on recorded accuracy of customer information and firearm serial numbers to be provided to police.

The legislation of 1938 also made provisions for firearm ownership permit exemptions if: you were a hunting permit holder, a member of the government or a member of the NSDAP.
It also made a provision that Jews were forbidden to possess any dangerous weapon, including firearms or ammunition. It also forbade Jews from manufacturing or selling firearms or ammunition.

 

[parsifal]

my step father comes from Berlin, and his parents house is still owned by his relations. As an aside, its back boundary was the demarcation line in 1945 between east and west berlin....

he says just about everyone knew what was going on from before the war, and where it was leading to. From Krystalnacht on there was no doubt as to the outcome, but the re-housing and redistribution of wealth derived from the property confiscations. he said nobody really objected, and in fact there was a fair degree of support for what was happening.

The treaty was not the cause of germany's economic predicament. That has been fairly conclusively proven in a number of books. moreover, the claim that Hitler suspended payments is untrue, as that was in effect from 1931 initiated by bruning. This idea that versailles was to blame for Germany's problems is again linked back to the idea that Hitlers was a good guy an in fact is a lie propagated by the man himself, and believed by many .

In a speech to the Reichstag on 17 May 1933, Adolf Hitler denounced the Treaty of Versailles because, in part, he claimed it had imposed such large reparations payments as to leave Germany in economic shambles.


"All the problems which are causing such unrest today lie in the deficiencies of the Treaty of Peace which did not succeed in solving in a clear and reasonable way the questions of the most decisive importance for the future. Neither national nor economic—to say nothing of legal—problems and demands of the nations were settled by this treaty in such a way as to stand the criticism of reason in the future. It is therefore natural that the idea of revision is not only one of the constant accompaniments of the effects of this treaty, but that it was actually foreseen as necessary by the authors of the Treaty and therefore given a legal foundation in the Treaty itself….

"It is not wise to deprive a people of the economic resources necessary for its existence without taking into consideration the fact that the population dependent on them are bound to the soil and will have to be fed. The idea that the economic extermination of a nation of sixty-five millions would be of service to other nations is absurd. Any people inclined to follow such a line of thought would, under the law of cause and effect, soon experience that the doom which they were preparing for another nation would swiftly overtake them. The very idea of reparations and the way in which they were enforced will become a classic example in the history of the nations of how seriously international welfare can be damaged by hasty and unconsidered action.

"As a matter of fact, the policy of reparations could only be financed by German exports. To the same extent as Germany, for the sake of reparations, was regarded in the light of an international exporting concern, the export of the creditor nations was bound to suffer. The economic benefit accruing from the reparation payments could therefore never make good the damage which the system of reparations inflicted upon the individual economic systems.

"The attempt to prevent such a development by compensating for a limitation of German exports by the grant of credits, in order to render payments possible, was no less short-sighted and mistaken in the end. For the conversion of political debts into private obligations led to an interest service which was bound to have the same results. The worst feature, however, was that the development of internal economic life was artificially hindered and ruined. The struggle to gain the world markets by constant underselling led to excessive rationalization measures in the economic field.

"The millions of German unemployed are the final result of this development. If it was desired, however, to restrict reparation obligations to deliveries in kind, this must naturally cause equally serious damage to the internal production of the nations receiving them. For deliveries in kind to the amount involved are unthinkable without most seriously endangering the production of the individual nations.

"The Treaty of Versailles is to blame for having inaugurated a period in which financial calculations appear to destroy economic reason.

"Germany has faithfully fulfilled the obligations imposed upon her, in spite of their intrinsic lack of reason and the obviously suicidal consequences of this fulfillment.

"The international economic crisis is the indisputable proof of the correctness of this statement."

— From Norman H. Baynes, ed. The Speeches of Adolf Hitler, April 1922–August 1939. Vol. 2. New York, 1969 "

All this is a lie, or substantially so, and yet more evidence of the belief that hitler was really a good guy misunderstood. Germany's economic crisis of 1918-33 was derived far more because of the way the Germans had finanaced their war effort. according to MacMillan, Margaret (2003). Peacemakers: The Paris Peace Conference of 1919 and Its Attempt to End War. John Murray. ISBN 978-0-719-56237-2.

In summary they say that During the First World War Germany could not import or export industrial goods, which severely limited trade. Food and other resources were diverted to the war effort.

To pay for the war, rather than raise taxes, the Kaiser borrowed massive amounts of money by selling 'war bonds' to the public. By the end of the war the country was heavily in debt, far more so than any other nation. As a result, by 1919 Germany was no longer the second most economically advanced nation in the world and unable to meet its foreign debt obligations. it was already insolvent as a national government.

The immediate economic consequences of the terms of the Treaty of Versailles were a significant concern and added to Germany's humiliation. Under the terms of the treaty Germany had to pay huge sums in reparations. In 1921, this amount was set at £6.6 billion, but they were already in debt to amuch greater degree than that (some sources say $60 billion others have other figures, but they are all substantially greater than the amount impposed by Versailles, which was successsivly extended as it became apparent Germany simply could not pay the reparations imposed on her). No denying that versailles was bad for germany, but it is just untrue that Versailles caused the german economic crisis. that was already inevitable by the time of the german surrender.

 

[parsifal]

Part II

The treaty in detail

The London Schedule of Payments, of 5 May 1921, established "the full liability of all the Central Powers combined, not just Germany alone," at 132 billion gold marks. This sum was a compromise, promoted by Belgium (against higher figures demanded by the French and Italians and the lower figure the British supported), that "represented an assessment of the lowest amount that public opinion ... would tolerate."

This figure was divided into three series of bonds. "A" and "B" Bonds, together, had a nominal value of 50 billion gold marks ($12.5 billion), smaller than what Germany had previously offered to pay. "C" Bonds, containing the remainder of the reparation figure, "were deliberately designed to be chimerical." They were "a political bargaining chip" that served the domestic policies of France and the United Kingdom. The figure was completely unreal, with the primary function of misleading public opinion "into believing that the 132-billion-mark figure was being maintained." Furthermore, "Allied experts knew that Germany could not pay 132 billion marks and that the other Central Powers could pay little. Thus the A and B Bonds, which were genuine, represented the actual Allied assessment of German capacity to pay." Taking into account what had already been paid, between 1919 and 1921, Germany's immediate obligation was therefore 41 billion gold marks.

To pay towards this sum, Germany could pay in kind or via cash payments. Commodities, paid in kind, included coal, timber, chemical dyes, pharmaceuticals, livestock, agricultural machines, construction material, and factory machinery. The gold value of these would be deducted from what Germany was required to pay. In addition, helping to restore the university library of Louvain (destroyed by the Germans on 25 August 1914) was also credited towards the sum, as were some of the territorial changes imposed upon Germany by the treaty. The payment schedule required 250 million dollars within twenty-five days and then 500 million annually, plus 26 per cent of the value of German exports. The German Government was to issue bonds at five per cent interest and set up a sinking fund of one per cent to support the payment of reparations. Even from an early sate, the bark of versailles was far worse than its bite, with the sole exception of the ruhr occupation

Quite rapidly the finacial impositions of versailles were dismatled. Between the signing of the Treaty of Neuilly-sur-Seine and April 1922, Bulgaria paid 173 million gold francs in reparations. In 1923, the Bulgarian reparation sum was revised downwards to 550 million gold francs, "plus a lump sum payment of 25 million francs for occupation costs". Towards this figure, Bulgaria paid 41 million gold francs between 1925 and 1929. In 1932, the Bulgarian reparation obligation was abandoned following the Lausanne Conference. bulgaria still went to war in 1941 as an axis client.

Austria was "so impoverished" following the war, coupled with the collapse of the Bank of Vienna, resulted in no reparations being paid "beyond credits for transferred property". Due to the collapse of the Hungarian economy, no reparations were paid other than coal deliveries. Turkish reparations had been "sharply limited in view of the magnitude of Turkish territorial losses". However, the Treaty of Sèvres was never ratified. When the Treaty of Lausanne was signed, in 1923, Turkish reparations were "eliminated altogether." German defaulted on her payments from almost the beginning as well which led to the occupation of the ruhr. However the occupation itself was never part of the versailles agreement, at least in the way it was executed. From the initiation of reparations, German coal deliveries were below the level agreed. In an attempt to rectify this situation, the Spa Conference was held in July 1920. At this conference it was decided that Germany would be paid five marks per coal ton delivered, to facilitate coal shipments and help feed the miners. This was well above the market value of Coal prices of the time. Despite this, Germany continued to default on her obligations. By late 1922, the German defaults on payments had grown so serious and regular that a crisis engulfed the Reparations Commission. French and Belgian delegates urged the seizure of the Ruhr as a way of encouraging the Germans to make more effort to pay, while the British supported postponing payments to facilitate the financial reconstruction of Germany. On 26 December 1922, Germany defaulted on timber deliveries. The timber quota was based upon a German proposal and the default was massively unmet. The Allies were unanimous that the default was deliberate, and in bad faith. In January 1923, the German Government defaulted on coal deliveries for the 34th time in three years despite quota reductions following the loss of the Upper Silesian coal fields (containing 11 per cent of German coal resources), which had been transferred to Poland.

On 9 January 1923, the Reparation Commission declared the Germans in default of their coal deliveries and voted to occupy the Ruhr to enforce Germany's reparation commitments. The British were the lone dissenting voice to both measures, and this should have prevented the following action under the treaty. The french (and Belgians chose to ignore this diseent. On 11 January, French and Belgian soldiers - supported by engineers, and including an Italian contingent - entered the region initiating the Occupation of the Ruhr.

The French Premier Raymond Poincaré was deeply reluctant to order the occupation, and had only taken this step after the British had rejected his proposals for more moderate sanctions against Germany.By December 1922, Poincaré was faced with Anglo-American-German hostility and saw coal for French steel production draining away.Exasperated with the British failure to act, he wrote to the French ambassador in London: "Judging others by themselves, the English, who are blinded by their loyalty, have always thought that the Germans did not abide by their pledges inscribed in the Versailles Treaty because they had not frankly agreed to them. ... We, on the contrary, believe that if Germany, far from making the slightest effort to carry out the treaty of peace, has always tried to escape her obligations, it is because until now she has not been convinced of her defeat. ... We are also certain that Germany, as a nation, resigns herself to keep her pledged word only under the impact of necessity". i agree with poincare in that respect

The occupation proved profitable, with the occupying powers receiving 900 million gold marks. However, the real issue behind the occupation was not German defaults on coal and timber deliveries, but forcing Germany "to acknowledge her defeat in World War I and to accept the Versailles Treaty." Poincaré recognized that if Germany could get away with defying Versailles in regards to the reparations, then a precedent would be created, and inevitably the Germans would proceed to dismantle the rest of the Versailles treaty.

The occupation led to the adoption of a new structure for Versailles reparations, the so-called Dawes Plan. Although the French succeeded in their objective during the Ruhr occupation, the Germans had wrecked their economy by funding passive resistance and brought about Hyperinflation. This was the second biggest issue to wreck German economic development, and one of the real root caauses for WWII. Under Anglo-American pressure, along with the simultaneous decline in the value of the franc, the French were increasingly isolated and their diplomatic position weakened. In October, a committee (consisting of American, Belgian, British, French, German and Italian experts) chaired by Director of the US Bureau of the Budget Charles G. Dawes was formed to consider "from a purely technical standpoint" how to balance the German budget, stabilize the economy and set an achievable level of reparations".

 

[parsifal]

Part III

In April 1924, the Dawes Plan was accepted and replaced the London schedule of payment. While the "C" Bonds were omitted from the framework of the plan, they were not formally rescinded. Then again there was zero0 debt servicing of the "C bonds" so they ought to be discounted as having any effect on German economy from that point forward. . As part of the plan, French troops were to withdraw from the Ruhr, a bank independent of the German Government was to be established, with a ruling body at least 50 per cent non-German, and the German currency was to be stabilized. The payment of reparations was also reorganized. In the first year, following the implementation of the plan, Germany would have to pay 1 billion marks. This figure would rise to 2.5 billion marks per year, by the fifth year of the plan. A Reparations Agency was established, with Allied representatives to organize the payment of reparations. Furthermore, a loan of 800 million marks was to be raised (Fifty per cent coming from the United States, 25 per cent from Britain, and the rest from other European nations) to back the German currency and to aid in the payment of reparations.

The dawes Plan did not last very long. it was soon replaced by the young Plan, which watered down German obligations yet further. The opening of the Second Hague Conference: one of the two conferences aimed at implementing the Young Plan. Germany met the obligations set out by the Dawes Plan, but "always considered the plan a temporary expedient and counted upon revision before payments became onerous." In late 1927, the Agent-General for Reparations "called for a more permanent scheme" for payments, and in 1928 the Germans followed suit. German Foreign Minister Gustav Stresemann called for a final reparation plan to be established alongside an early withdrawal of Allied troops from the Rhineland. The French, aware of their weakening political and financial position, acquiesced. On 16 September 1928, a joint Entente-German statement was issued acknowledging the need for a new reparations plan.

In February 1929, a new committee was formed to re–examine reparations. Chaired by the American banker Owen D. Young, the committee presented its findings during January 1930. The "Young Plan" was accepted and then ratified by the German Government on 12 March 1930. The plan established a final reparation figure at 112 billion gold marks (26.35 billion dollars) with a new payment schedule that would see reparations completed by 1988; the first time that a final date had been set. In addition, foreign oversight of German finances was to end with the withdrawal of the Reparations Agency, which would be replaced by the Bank for International Settlements. The bank was established to provide cooperation among German banks, receive and disburse reparation payments. A further loan of 300 million dollars was to given to Germany. As a result of the plan, German payments were half of what had been required under the Dawes Plan. The implementation of the plan required the Anglo-French withdrawal from the Rhineland within months.Despite the progress, there was increasing German hostility to the Young Plan. In December 1929, 5.8 million voters registered their opposition to the plan during a plebiscite, which resulted in Adolf Hitler gaining "significant national attention and valuable right-wing financing."

In March 1930, the German Government collapsed and was replaced by a new coalition led by Chancellor Heinrich Brüning. In June, Allied troops withdrew from near Mainz - the last occupation zone in the Rhineland - and Brüning's Government broached the subject of demanding refinement to reparations, only to be shot down by the British ambassador to France William Tyrrell. During 1931, a financial crisis began in Germany. In May, Creditanstalt, the largest bank in Austria, collapsed sparking a banking crisis in both Germany and Austria. In response, Brüning announced that Germany was suspending reparation payments. This generated an immediate and severe crisis in the german banking system, already reeling under the pressures of the depression, and resulted in a massive withdrawal of domestic and foreign funds from German banks. By mid-July, all German banks had closed. French policy, to this point, had been to provide Germany with financial credits to help Brüning's Government stabilize the country. Brüning, now under considerable political pressure from the far-right and President Paul von Hindenburg, was unable to make any concessions or reverse policy. As a result, Brüning was unable to borrow money from foreign or domestic sources. Further attempts to enlist British support to end reparations failed, as the British highlighted it was a joint issue with both France and the United States. In early July, Brüning announced "his intention to seek the outright revision of the Young Plan". In light of the crisis and with the prospect of Germany being unable to repay its debts, United States President Herbert Hoover intervened. In June, Hoover publically proposed a one year moratorium to reparation and war debts. By July, the "Hoover Moratorium" had been accepted. There were no further payments until 1945, and in fact the money trend was reverse, Germany began to receive substantial finacial credits from that point onward, particualalry from the US and british banks.

The moratorium was met with widespread support from both Germany and the United Kingdom. The French, initially hesitant, eventually also agreed to support the American proposal. However, on 13 July, the German Darmstädter Bank collapsed leading to further bankruptcies and a rise in unemployment further exacerbating the financial crisis within the country. With the Great Depression now exerting its influence, the Bank for International Settlements reported that the Young Plan was unrealistic in light of the current economic crisis and urged the world governments to reach a new settlement on the various debts they owed each other. During January 1932, Brüning stated that he would now seek the complete cancellation of reparations. His position was supported by the British and Italians, and opposed by the French. There were still no actual payments being made, and by then no foreign troops in Germany. the great lie that hitler was a good guy that saved Germany continues.....

Due to the political differences between each country on the subject, along with impending elections in both France and Germany, a conference could not be established until June. This delay brought about the downfall of Brüning's Government. On 16 June, the Lausanne Conference opened. However, discussions were complicated by the ongoing World Disarmament Conference. At the latter conference, the Americans informed the British and French that they would not be allowed to default on their war debts. In turn, they recommended that war debts be tied into German reparation payments, which the Germans objected too. On 9 July, an agreement was reached and signed. The Lausanne Conference annulled the Young Plan and required Germany to pay a final single installment of 3 billion marks (to save France from political humiliation) thus ending Germany's obligation to pay reparations. I do not believe that payment was ever honoured. germany was off the hook until after hitler. Doesnt stop one of the great lies being propagated and believed across the world .....that Hitler saved Germany from Versailles and the oppression of the reparations. The reparations were oppressive, but germanys economic problems were far more deep seated than that, and hitler did not defeat the evil of Versailles.

 

[GregP]

Not sure about the population in 1940, but in 1939 it was less than 70 million. German military deaths alone were on the order of 5.5 million.

My friend who told me that was there and lived it. When the Army came around and took their family's guns, they didn't stand around quoting the law, they got out of the way so they weren't arrested.

The story I heard stays the same regardless of what any "research" might say ... I;ve heard it very smiliarly from more than one source that was there.

So, believe whatever you want, Tom and Parsifal. My first love is the aircraft, not foreign gun l;aws. And I'm not and never have been an NRA member. Maybe you should stop assuming other people are speculating. Two of our volunteers are from Germany and their families were there during the war, too, and mostly still live there. Neither of these guys was of military age at the time, but the family stories and the picture albums tell a tale all their own in addition to my old friend's recollections.

Boy, Parsifal, it's a good thing we have you in here or I'd never have read the treaty. It was the first time in history that the victorious pwoers required the losing side to pay for the entire war. It is an affront to fairness and should never be repeated. It was the primary cause of German poverty in the post-WWI timeframe. That;s my take on it and since this is an aviation forum, I think the argument should stop here. Your view is abundantly clear and we simply disagree. No problem.

However, I'll argue aircraft in here with anyone going forward and try very hard to avoid other subjects. This is, after all, an aviation forum. Offhand, I'd say we have completely different perceptions of WWII and its causes, and the history that lead up to it. Count Metternich would turn over in his grave. When they let the Triple Alliance go, WWI was almost inevitable. Seems like a month or more since the posts were actually about WWII aricraft and not politics or "what if" alternate history speculation.

I eagerly await a retun to aviation in its real form. Time for a cold one before I fall asleep from this stuff. Cheers and happy flying.

 

[GrauGeist]

Seems like a month or more since the posts were actually about WWII aricraft and not politics or "what if" alternate history speculation.

I eagerly await a retun to aviation in its real form. Time for a cold one before I fall asleep from this stuff. Cheers and happy flying.

Nobody put a gun to your head and made you join this thread...

 

[parsifal]

we are off topic, and its my fault. The thread is Aviation Myths. hitler being or not being a good guy is not really on topic. What would you like to discuss then?

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Here we go again...