Peace between Axis and Allies

General WWII era German military discussion that doesn't fit someplace more specific.
sid guttridge
on "time out"
Posts: 8055
Joined: Thu Oct 10, 2002 4:54 am

Post by sid guttridge » Tue Feb 28, 2006 5:35 am

PPPS.

Sorry, that should read:

I have just checked. Germany lost 13% of its European land area, not "nearly a third".

Cheers,

Sid.

User avatar
Chris von D..............
Member
Posts: 32
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 5:59 pm
Location: Melbourne Australia

Post by Chris von D.............. » Tue Feb 28, 2006 5:46 am

I want the German lands restored or a single Europe. Unfortunately I don't have the means to impliment my wishes but if I did, I wouldn't hesitate.

Being Catholic, I would actually create a new Holy Roman Empire and I like the Polish people, Saint John Paul II, and I strongly disagree as to how other Germans have treated them.

The Poles are a God fearing people and saved Vienna from Invasion - they deserve a great deal better than Hitler's ideas.
Image

User avatar
M.H.
Patron
Posts: 1742
Joined: Tue Jun 07, 2005 12:00 pm
Location: Berlin

Post by M.H. » Tue Feb 28, 2006 5:53 am

Just for fun Chris...if you would wake up tomorrow and had the power to do what you want...what would you do? HOW would you unifiy Europe?
(My take is it will be a natural process needing centuries)
But you say you want it quick. Don't forget Europe is still pretty much tribal!
So, what would be your first steps? :D

User avatar
Chris von D..............
Member
Posts: 32
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 5:59 pm
Location: Melbourne Australia

Post by Chris von D.............. » Tue Feb 28, 2006 6:33 am

M.H. wrote:Just for fun Chris...if you would wake up tomorrow and had the power to do what you want...what would you do? HOW would you unifiy Europe?
(My take is it will be a natural process needing centuries)
But you say you want it quick. Don't forget Europe is still pretty much tribal!
So, what would be your first steps? :D
I am a Christian and Catholic so I am governed by that. I would make the Catholic Church a lot more powerful but maintain a separation of powers.

I would make Sunday a day of rest and reduce the immorality and hunger for greed.

I would seek to make honesty and virtue something to attain rather than the wealth and power we have today.

A modern day Charlemagne.

I would reverse all the humiliations the Germanic peoples suffered under Hitler and post 1945. I would do this remembering the example of Charles De Gaul.

Prussia would exist again.

The Wehrmacht would exist and a single European army would then be created on the foundation of the Wehrmacht.

A single language would be used - English. I think it is more advanced and I can speak it. Though it may get a name change, so the English stop owning it! The English are Germans in any case so it is academic.

There is too much injustice in Europe. I would create justice bodies with real power where people will get real justice.

I would outlaw poverty.

Europe will be given the mission to help Africa and colonise the Moon and Mars. There would be conscription and so no unemployment.

Basically the European peoples will be given objectives, where the sum of the parts make the achievement as a whole possible.

Corruption would be severely punnished. There would be no capital punishment but there would be a stripping of citizenship.

The capital city of Europe will be Berlin - or a new city in the center.

I would give more power to the people. Give the people a real say.

People want a job, food on their table, a roof over there heads. They want to live in peace and visit other peoples.

People don't start wars. It is those in power who live an unrealistic life of luxury - and that would be removed too.

A lot of changes but one where highly skilled people will draw up the plans and the people have input.

The English monarchy would be abolished and all they property given over to the people.

Queen Betty in Buckinghuge Palace will have to do an honest days work for a change.

Europe is now weak. They are like a boat with a broken rudder adrift on a large lake.

There won't be any wars but there will be a strong military and a better life for the people.

Broad brush strokes I know but it is something I think about a lot.

Too many Europeans suffer. Germans injustice. Polish poverty. Others isolation. Others confusion.

Europe needs a direction and at the present they chase each others tails.

I would have a strong system of people feedback.

Democratic institutions would be strengthened.

The ideas of Europeans fighting for land will become something that is read about and regarded as from primitive times.

The truth about World War I and II will be taught and not the victories propaganda version.

Every European nation has something worthwhile to contribute. Like a band - it takes different talents to sound good.

May God bless Europe.
Image

User avatar
M.H.
Patron
Posts: 1742
Joined: Tue Jun 07, 2005 12:00 pm
Location: Berlin

Post by M.H. » Tue Feb 28, 2006 7:51 am

These are interesting goals...but I would like to know HOW you would make these happen???
Europeans aren't likely to follow a lone figure (not even a new Charlemagne), especially if he doesn't come from the home team...the tribal differences and jealousies and often longstanding distrust and animosities aren't so easy to overcome! @{

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

Post by sid guttridge » Tue Feb 28, 2006 8:30 am

.............. besides, Europe has already had its would-be "new Charlemagnes" in Louis XIV, Napoleon and Hitler. (Strange how they were all baptised Catholics!) They were not a great success, leaving the continent devoid of whole generations of young men, impoverished and in ruins.

Blind belief in any individual leader is to surrender one's own personal independence. Many Russians suffer from just such a doltish desire to surrender themselves to a great and infallible leader, hence the high standing the ghastly Stalin is again held in.

So, if you want to reduce yourself to an impotent drone, vote CvD - once, you won't get a second chance!

Cheers,

Sid.

User avatar
Enrico Cernuschi
Patron
Posts: 1086
Joined: Sun Dec 15, 2002 2:05 am
Location: Pavia

Post by Enrico Cernuschi » Tue Feb 28, 2006 11:23 am

Wow, what an interesting debate, Gentlemen.
May I add some pepper at the sauce? :evil:

a) CvD . Charlemagne (Karl der Grosse) appeal is great both in France and Germany (they are sons of the same Franc origin, a German lenguage pèeople, just to be plain), but not in Italy, where we prefer to remember Carlomagno (he is always the same guy) and his army stopped in front of Venice lagoon and had to give up th eidea to invade that young Republic. The origin of Renaissance was born that day. According the local opinion the Francs (like French today and Germans too, not to mention British) are barbarians of the next of kin of barbarians. Europe is a geographic term; the peoples (if I say races I would be damned, I presume; what about lenguages?) are different. This condition is the same since the fall of Rome (or since Hermann victory at the Teutoburg wood) so what strange? I think an Austalian only may have got such an optimistic opinion of Europe.

b) Sid. I believe strongly that it was Britain, not Germany, the true guilty of World War One. I could quote many different sorices, but a very recent one (Niall Ferguson The Pity of War, ed. Basic Book, 1998, is a good record with many interesting and documented extras about this subject. Just to do an example "Officially Geroge V' subjects were fighting to uphold the neutrality of Albert II' kingdom. In fact, Britain would have volated Belgian netrality herself if Germany had not".

c) M.H. I think that the Versailles Treaty was not the main origin of Hitler's election successes. It was USSR menace (and they were quite right).

And now Messieurs les Anglais, tirez le premier

Bye

EC
Ciàpla adasi, stà léger.

User avatar
Alex Coles
Associate
Posts: 780
Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2005 9:50 am
Location: England

Post by Alex Coles » Tue Feb 28, 2006 12:20 pm

You are going badly off-topic, I asked what you think would be a fair treaty if the Germans reached 21/6/41, not about WWI, and this other miscellaneous things. If you continue to do so, I will request to have this thread locked.

User avatar
Chris von D..............
Member
Posts: 32
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 5:59 pm
Location: Melbourne Australia

Post by Chris von D.............. » Tue Feb 28, 2006 3:18 pm

One correction. There would not be a lone leader as suggested. The "leader" would be duly elected by the people but for a fixed term. The person who ends up leading will have attained that position through democratic processes.

Exactly how will all this be achieved? Well the best minds will be given the task to draw up the plans.

I just have a big picture view. I leave it for others to fill in the details.
Image

User avatar
Chris von D..............
Member
Posts: 32
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 5:59 pm
Location: Melbourne Australia

Post by Chris von D.............. » Tue Feb 28, 2006 3:26 pm

17 SS Panzer Grenadier wrote:I asked what you think would be a fair treaty if the Germans reached 21/6/41,
Germany would let most of Holland, Belgum and France go. Border areas west of the Rhine would become part of Germany.

Denmark, Norway and Poland would remain Germanic.

Switzerland would be invaded - someone please do this!

I think that would be fair - oh and Hitler would have to go and a democratic Government instituted.
Image

Dan38
New Member
Posts: 7
Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2006 3:51 pm

Versailles

Post by Dan38 » Tue Feb 28, 2006 5:20 pm

Off Topic
I disagree. The Versailles Treaty was a flawed and devastating document for Europe. Germany signed the 1918 Armistice with the understanding that the following peace treaty would be based on Wilson’s Fourteen Points proposal, one of which agreed was self determination. Of course self determination was acceptable to the Triple Entente (minus one) as long as it applied only to the Triple Alliance. Other Wilson Points were to be no annexations, no punitive damages, only reparation to the civilian population for war damages.
With the Spartakists (Reds) beating on the back door (Hence “Stab in the Back” theory) Germany had little choice but to accept an armistice, also by this time Ludendorff had lost his nerve. GB and France after the war then reneged on the Armistice agreement concepts. (One reason for this action was the fact that both the British and French governments were broke, and the United States banking firms were demanding repayment of billions of dollar in war loaned given to the allies. GB and France needed a method of transfer this debt directly to the Germans.)
Article 231 of the finalized Versailles Treaty established war guilt upon the Central Powers, major guilt hich should have been applied only to the “Back Hand”organization of Serbia , and both Serbia and Russia. (remembering the start of WW1, the murder of the Archduke also keeping in mind Tannenberg is in East Prussia.) The Allies needed this guilt concept in order to justify attempts to get approximately 800 billion gold marks ($200 billion) from the Germans. (This attempt ultimately failed due to the devalued German mark undercutting French and British goods.)
As a final note, the secreted treaty terms were sprung on the German in June of 1920. A newly formed socialist government basically was forced to signed this document under immediate threat of war and the continuation of the on-going sea blockade, (since 1918.).
In my opinion Germany should have never signed this flawed document and called the Allies bluff. This treaty led directly to the instability of Europe and rise of the NSDAP.
Without the application of this treaty the reestablishment of the 1914 German borders in 1941 would not be needed.
Dan38

Dan38
New Member
Posts: 7
Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2006 3:51 pm

Black Hand

Post by Dan38 » Tue Feb 28, 2006 5:25 pm

The reference should be: "Black Hand" Organization, not "Back Hand", also "hich" should be which. Sorry about that.
Dan38

User avatar
Chris von D..............
Member
Posts: 32
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 5:59 pm
Location: Melbourne Australia

Re: Versailles

Post by Chris von D.............. » Tue Feb 28, 2006 6:03 pm

Dan38 wrote:In my opinion Germany should have never signed this flawed document and called the Allies bluff.
I concur. Germany never lost the first world war. They simply surrendered - those who surrendered should have been put up against a wall facing a firing squad.

The Reichswehr never lost the first world war and the Wehrmacht fought to the last against overwhelming odds.

Few armies in the history of mankind can match the bravery of the Wehrmacht and Waffen SS.

The Bundeswehr claim no association with the Wehrmacht and should be scrapped. It isn't being a Nazi to be proud of ones army. The Wehrmacht veterans have been treated disgracefully by the German Governments since 1945.

The Americans should get out of Germany already and all their bases closed. If anything have joint French-German bases in France and Germany, but not the yanks.

The Americans may stay here in Australia and provide our national security which they are doing, but that is because we need them and they want to be here.

The German people do NOT want the Americans which are a reminder of the defeat.

I have a very low opinion of most German leaders, seeing them as apologists and never defending Germany or the German people as they should - they are little more than puppets in my view.

The only true Germans are those of the right wing and that is unfortunate because that is basically their only good policy - pride in being German.

You can put on a Nazi uniform and walk around here, sing folk songs about Adolf here and start a Nazi party - in Germany you do a Hitler salute and suddenly you are villainised ... get over it already.

The German people are oppressed by the political lies of the Allies and the lies of Hollywood with vested interests - Speilberg being a Jew does play a part and to pretend he doesn't take his faith seriously is to live a lie - no way will he ever make a true war story. He is pure propaganda.

I just think that Germany need to break the bonds of the 1945 defeat and be the great people they were, they are, and that they will always be.

The Germanic peoples are a great people, but a perversion of victors history oppresses them.

As an Australian I denounce the actions of Australia and the Allies that fail to treat the Germanic peoples as they should be treated.

The irony is that in Australia ever more people are becoming more pro German and although the treatment of the Jews is pure evil, the German peoples did a great many good things.

The natural leaders of Europe are the Germanic people - I say Germanic because I refer to a people rather than to a single nation state or political boundaries.

It makes me sad that Germany is still not yet free of the 1945 allied yoke. Though in time this will happen.

A new enemy will arise and the Germans will win and what has happened will be consigned to the past where it belongs.

The injustice inflicted upon the German people in 1918 has not been addressed yet and anyone who things otherwise is in denial. The reality is that the batton has simply passed from one generation to the next.

Germanic peoples populate "Allied" countries and the influence of that which is Germanic grows.

You can take a person from their homeland but you cannot take a person from their people.
Image

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

Post by sid guttridge » Wed Mar 01, 2006 5:41 am

Hi Dan38,

No. Germany did not sign the Armistice on any understanding about the nature of the peace treaty that was to follow. Read the Armistice conditions. It is a stand-alone document. There is absolutely no mention of Wilson's 14 Points or the nature of the final peace in it.

Germany certainly wanted peace based on Wilson's 14 Points, but this was not offered.

The Black Hand was certainly a guilty party for committing a local assassination in the Balkans, but it was not a formal, internationally recognised organisation, had no influence over the actions of the Great Powers aand so cannot be held responsible for their actions.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Here are some of the sequence of events in 1914:

28 June - Black Hand assassinate Franz Ferdinand in Sarajevo.

29 June - Austrian Chief of Staff Conrad proposes immediate mobilization against Serbia.

1 July - German publicist Naumann assures Austrian diplomat Hoyos of German support and urges quick action against Serbia.

2 July - German Ambassadfor Tschirsky assures Austrian Emperor Franz Joseph of German support in dfense of Austria-Hungary's "vital interests".

4 July - France and Russia advise Serbia and Austria-Hungary to stay calm.

5 July - Hoyos arrives in Berlin to confirm German intentions. Kaiser Wilhelm II confrms German support ("the so-called "blank cheque") to Austrian Ambassador.

6 July - Bethmann, German Chancellor, assures Hoyos of German support no matter what, and urges immediate action.

7 July - Hoyos tells Austrian Foreign Minister, who tells Conrad, Austro-Hungarian chief of staff, that Germany will back Austria-Hungary even if operations against Serbia "should bring about the great war". Austrian Common Council of Ministers agrees, with Tisza dissenting, to force a military confrontation by issuing an ultimatum that Serbia cannot accept.

8 July - Tisza protests to Franz Jseph that an attack on Serbia will bring about a world war. Austrian Foreign minister Berchtold tells Conrad that that the ultimatum will be issued on 22 July. Germans and Austrians agree that senior political and military officials should go on leave "to keep up an appearance that nothing is going on."

22 July - Russia warns Austria against drastic action but Berchtold only learns of this after the ultimatum had been delivered the next day.

23 July - Leaders of the German Foreign Office see the text of the Austrian ultimatum and express approval. The ultimatum is then delivered to Serbia at 1800.

24 July - Russian Council of Ministers ask Czar for agreement in principle to partial mobilisation. Council of Ministers also advises Serbia not to resist an Austro-Hungarian invasion but let the Great Powers resolve it.

British Foreign Minister Grey proposes to German ambassador in London that Britain, France, Germany and Italy mediate between Austria-Hungary and Serbia.

25 July - 0116 hours, Berlin receives Grey's mediation suggestions but delays passing it on to Vienna until 1600 hours - after the Austrian ultimatum has expired. Austrian Ambassador in Berlin, Szogyeny, paasses on the Germans' repeated advice to his government: Attack without delay. Grey meets German ambassador in London, who reports that Berlin is not prepared to hold Austri-Hungary back. Russia announces that it "cannot remain indifferent" to any Austro-Serbian dispute.

1500 hours. Serbia mobilises. 1800 Serbia accepts most terms of the Austrian ultimatum, requests clarification on some and rejects only one. Austri-Hungary authorises mobilisation against Serbia. Operations to start 12 August.

France begins military preparations.

Czar agrees on partial mobilisation against Austria-Hungary only.

26 July - Chief of German General Staff Moltke drafts an ultimatum to Belgium demanding passage for German troops.

France learns that German officers are being recalled to units and does the same.

Grey proposes a conference of ambassadors from Britain, Italy, Germany and France.

27 July - France and Italy accept Grey's proposals. Germany rejects the idea. German Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs von Jagow again presses Austria-Hungary to act without delay. At 1630 hours Austria-Hungary notifies Germany it will declare war on 28 July, not 12 August. 2115 German Foreign office belatedly passes on Grey's proposals to Austri-Hungary but specifically disassociates itself from the idea. Instead Jagow again urges quick action by Austria.

28 July - Wilhelm II, who has been on extended holiday reads the Serbian reply late because Bethmann and Jagow had witheld it from him. He thinks it acceptable but is too late to stop Austria-Hungary from declaring war on Serbia at noon.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

It is quite clear that the motivation for a localised war against Serbia came from within the Austrian end of the Austro-Hungarian Empire (the Hungarians being reluctant) and from some within the German government. Germany and Austria-Hungary were therefore proactive during July, whereas Russia, France and Britain were reactive.

A lot of people are responsible for the escalation into WWI, but if primary culprits are to be singled out, they are war mongers within the governments of Austria and Germany during July 1914.

Cheers,

Sid.

User avatar
Chris von D..............
Member
Posts: 32
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 5:59 pm
Location: Melbourne Australia

Post by Chris von D.............. » Wed Mar 01, 2006 6:55 am

sid guttridge

Excellent enumeration.
Image

Post Reply