Largest Post World War One Polish Battle

German Freikorps, Reichsheer and Reichsmarine 1919-1934.

Moderator: Jason Pipes

Postby Dackel Staffel » Thu Jan 29, 2004 2:38 pm

Hi,

Right into the theory of the book Icebreaker. In 1920, Germany was too in trouble circa 1919/1920, even Hitler in Bavaria was not very clear. What did he do in the republic of councels ?

So Long.
All we need it's a Dackel in each pocket
User avatar
Dackel Staffel
Associate
 
Posts: 713
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2004 3:04 pm

Postby Freiritter » Mon Feb 02, 2004 6:00 pm

Hopefully this post isn't too late. I feel that the Versailles Treaty was horribly unfair and placed blame on the wrong nation. The French used the peace treaty to impose vengeance on her mortal enemy. True, I believe that WWI was the beginning of Europe's downfall from power, being an Armageddon that nearly destroyed Europe. I think it's ridiculous that the Allies attempted to prevent a resurge of German military aggression, ( By imposing restrictions on German military policy and size ) considering the rough treatment at Allied hands, after hoping for fair treatment under Wilson's Fourteen Points. As it was put after the signing in a cartoon, a child with the words, " Class of 1940 " weeping at the signing, while Clemenceau, Wilson and Lloyd George were walking by. Even one of the German delegates was quoted in saying, " See you again in 20 years. " I believe that the Allies ensured a rematch in WWII.
User avatar
Freiritter
Associate
 
Posts: 628
Joined: Mon Nov 24, 2003 9:56 am
Location: Missouri, USA

Postby sid guttridge » Tue Feb 03, 2004 5:46 am

Hi Freiritter,

It seems to have escaped your notice that Hitler reversed all the unfair aspects of the Versailles Treaty in the 1930s without any of the former Allies declaring war on him.

Then, by occupying Bohemia-Moravia in March 1939, he went far beyond simply reversing the Versailles Treaty by taking over territory that had never been German and was almost entirely populated by non-Germans in contravention of his solemn word at Munich six months before.

Versailles didn't ensure WWII. Hitler did.

Cheers,

Sid.
sid guttridge
on "time out"
 
Posts: 8055
Joined: Thu Oct 10, 2002 4:54 am

Postby Dackel Staffel » Tue Feb 03, 2004 10:47 am

Hi,

The treaty of Versailles created the conditions making a war possible, and not only for Germany but only Hitler made it inevitable.

So long.
All we need it's a Dackel in each pocket
User avatar
Dackel Staffel
Associate
 
Posts: 713
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2004 3:04 pm

Postby Freiritter » Tue Feb 03, 2004 2:51 pm

Hello all,

I'm sorry, I should have remembered my history. Yes, I read that the British voting populace did pretty much sympathize with the Germans, even after Hitler started ignoring the Versailles Treaty. This helped to swing the British government into working with Germany over naval buildup, the reconstitution of the Wehrmacht and aggressive German foreign policy in the years 1935-1939. My eloquence has escaped me and I'm sorry that I spoke ignorantly and rashly. I mean that the French had used the Treaty of 1919 as a reprisal on Germany. I forgot that British sympathy and French insecurity had tried to find an accomodation with a resurgent Germany. Also, to make another point. The Truppenamt were making buildup plans and preparations before the rise of Hitler. The big business interests, resentful Junkers and embittered soldiers in the post war Reichsheer had helped Hitler into power and they had certainly helped to ensure a second general European war. Again, my apologies. I should take more care with my studies.
User avatar
Freiritter
Associate
 
Posts: 628
Joined: Mon Nov 24, 2003 9:56 am
Location: Missouri, USA

Postby Dackel Staffel » Tue Feb 03, 2004 3:53 pm

Hi,

In the 30's noboby in England and France wanted an another war, at any price. The pacifist movement was strong in France at this time. It was maybe because for that reason, France and UK let Hitler did what he did.
As Malraux wrote : "they took their cowardness for wisdom"

So long.
All we need it's a Dackel in each pocket
User avatar
Dackel Staffel
Associate
 
Posts: 713
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2004 3:04 pm

Postby sid guttridge » Wed Feb 04, 2004 4:40 am

Hi Guys,

I think the British hoped to stay out of continental wars after WWI. Hence their inability to send more than two divisions to the continent at the time of Munich in 1938.

The French therefore had to work on a worst-case possibility of having to stand up to the Germans alone. As Germany had approaching twice the population of France by 1939 this was not a very appealing proposition.

On top of this was the widespread pacifism that followed WWI and, in Britain at least, an appreciation that the financial terms of Versailles and the humiliation involved in the prolonged occupation and demilitarisation of the Rhineland were likely to prove counter productive. The French, who had had territory occupied by Germany in WWI and financial reparations imposed on them by the Germans in 1870, took a harder line because their historical experience with Germany was different.

Finally, Versailles or no Versailles, defeat tends to breed thoughts of revenge anyway.

Cheers,

Sid.
sid guttridge
on "time out"
 
Posts: 8055
Joined: Thu Oct 10, 2002 4:54 am

Postby Dackel Staffel » Wed Feb 04, 2004 1:24 pm

Hi Sid,

About the difference of population between France and Germany, don't forget to count the average age of the population. It seems to me that Germany had a younger population than France. My grandfather was the first mobilized in my hometown in 1939 and he was 43 years old.

So long.
All we need it's a Dackel in each pocket
User avatar
Dackel Staffel
Associate
 
Posts: 713
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2004 3:04 pm

Postby sid guttridge » Thu Feb 05, 2004 5:57 am

Hi Dackel Staffel,

France's long term weak population growth has always mystified me.

In Louis XIV's time there were four times as many Frenchmen as Englishmen. In Napoleon's time it was three to one. By WWI the two populations were almost the same, despite much more massive British emigration to the colonies. I think the French population approximately doubled between 1815 and 1914, whereas England's went up by about five times.

Why was French population growth so slow compared to its neighbours? It cannot simply be due to wars as even during the Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars there was no fall in population.

Any ideas?

Cheers,

Sid
sid guttridge
on "time out"
 
Posts: 8055
Joined: Thu Oct 10, 2002 4:54 am

Postby Dackel Staffel » Thu Feb 05, 2004 12:09 pm

Hi Sid,

Agree with that. According to the Keegan's book about the world war I, in 1916, the frenchs had nearly noone to send to the front. I will check the net if I can find the reason of this riddle. Maybe the France was more agricultural than England. Workers had more children than farmers. When you are a farmer, you have to think about the farm after your death. With several children, the farm will be divided in too small parts not enough big to feed the new farmers. Just an idea and "souvenirs" from history lessons in School.

So long, Sid.
All we need it's a Dackel in each pocket
User avatar
Dackel Staffel
Associate
 
Posts: 713
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2004 3:04 pm

Postby Das_Reich » Tue Feb 10, 2004 12:51 pm

sid guttridge wrote:Hi Dackel Staffel,

France's long term weak population growth has always mystified me.

In Louis XIV's time there were four times as many Frenchmen as Englishmen. In Napoleon's time it was three to one. By WWI the two populations were almost the same, despite much more massive British emigration to the colonies. I think the French population approximately doubled between 1815 and 1914, whereas England's went up by about five times.

Why was French population growth so slow compared to its neighbours? It cannot simply be due to wars as even during the Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars there was no fall in population.

Any ideas?

Cheers,

Sid


The French, being primarily an immoral culture, use abortion, as a means of birth control, on a par with few nations.
Das_Reich
 

Postby sid guttridge » Wed Feb 11, 2004 4:39 am

Hi Das Reich,

What is the evidence for your proposition in the Eighteenth and Nineteenth Centuries when France's relative population decline took place?

Cheers,

Sid
sid guttridge
on "time out"
 
Posts: 8055
Joined: Thu Oct 10, 2002 4:54 am

Postby Das_Reich » Wed Feb 11, 2004 5:18 pm

sid guttridge wrote:Hi Das Reich,

What is the evidence for your proposition in the Eighteenth and Nineteenth Centuries when France's relative population decline took place?

Cheers,

Sid


i don't have any. i will research this and get back to you later. cheers.
Das_Reich
 

Postby Stefan » Thu Feb 12, 2004 9:10 am

I have read a lot of crap by DR, but this tops it all ... I guess we know understand why he is so fascinated by the Nazis ... he just loves the Lebensborn. :D
User avatar
Stefan
Banned
 
Posts: 433
Joined: Fri Sep 27, 2002 3:54 am
Location: Deutschland

Postby Schultz » Tue Feb 24, 2004 11:36 pm

I recall reading an article in an old issue of Soldier of Fortune years ago about American and German as well as British pilots who flew for Poland against the Bolsheviks. It discussed a large battle near Warsaw i believe.
I'll see if i can relocate the article and see what it has to say about battles of the period.
It was quite an interesting article which discussed at one stage of the battle there was no ammo for the aircraft so the pilots flew low knocking calvary off there horses with there landing gear.

Schultz
User avatar
Schultz
Contributor
 
Posts: 252
Joined: Mon Dec 02, 2002 8:06 am
Location: Idaho

PreviousNext

Return to Reichswehr

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests