German Guilt and responsibility. A different view

[Buligwyf]

The Second World War began in an even less intelligent way than the First. No one can say that the issue that took Britain into the Second World War represented any danger to her at all. With extraordinary imprudence, the British Government had allowed itself to become involved in the German dispute with Czechoslovakia, a dispute with which it had no real concern, and in which it burnt its fingers very badly. Smarting under the ensuing criticism, it commited the further blunder in the following year of letting itself be pushed by interested clamour into making a gesture to "stop Hitler" by giving a guarantee to Poland against Germany. By no possible stretch of argument could it be maintained that British security was in the least affected by anything that might happen to Poland; while, if British honour could be held to be involved, by virtue of Britain being a signatory of the Treaty of Versailles which had recreated Poland as an independant state, the United States was equally concerned, as were also France, Italy and Japan. Moreover a British guarantee of Poland against Germany was as capable as a guarantee of Mexico against the United States. Hitler naturally knew this and declined to be deterred by such palpable bluff, and Britain was driven into declaring war. The Second World War thus began when the British Government gave unyielding support to Polish retention of the Polish Corridor. This had been a territorial device of the Versailles peace-makers which for the next twenty years intelligent people in Britain and elsewhere had condemned as an impossible political arrangement, in defense of which it was unthinkable that the British nation should ever be drawn into hostilities. Now the unthinkable had come to pass.
But, once again, the struggle soon developed into a crusade to end war. For the second time, Germany was thunderously denounced as the trouble-maker and the anti German world was assured that this time there would be no half measures. ( Unconditional Hatred - German War Guilt and the Future of Europe. Capt. Russell Grenfell, R.N )

[Dr. Beat]

The British also must have realized Hitler wouldn't stop until he couquered the world. It was pretty darn obvious that Hitler would eventually go after Britian, if not for territory than for vengance for the first world war.

[Buligwyf]

Britain´s hostility towards any European state has always been dictated by reasons of world power and world trade, even when she has not herself been threatened at sea by the adversary of the moment. Her amour-propre, her sense of power, her desire for economic predominance all unite in protest if any other European state seems about to become too great. Churchill and so many of his Anglo-Saxon conspirators both in his own country and the US wanted this war and they got it. Already in 1939 Roosevelt was eager to bring about a war with Germany with co-operation of the British and eager participation by Churchill. Hitler's attack on Poland was a punishing action without a declaration of war. Danzig had a great deal more right to be returned to Das Reich than the Falklands to the British ! The theory that Hitler wanted world domination sounds too much like something out of a MelBrooks movie . Great Britain did its utmost to ensure Germanys alienatation from the rest of the world. German colonies were taken away and, by the dismemberment of Austria, a number of succession states were created in Europe which, being in permanent alliance with France, presented Germany with a complete ring of hostile bayonets.

[PaulJ]

The British Government had allowed itself to become involved in the German dispute with Czechoslovakia, a dispute with which it had no real concern...

Well, that depends how you see Britain's concerns. They were concerned about a resurgent expansionist Germany. Was that an illegitimate concern?

...and in which it burnt its fingers very badly.

How do you mean that? If you mean that Hitler burned them by blatantly overturning his solemn pledge and seizing the rump of Czechoslavakia completely contrary to his word, then yes, they certainly did get burned.

By no possible stretch of argument could it be maintained that British security was in the least affected by anything that might happen to Poland.

On the contrary, the balance of power on the continent was of great interest to Britain. You yourself admitted as much when citing the balance of power on the continent as the real reason for Britain's declaration of war in 1939. See this forum's previous discussion of this in the thread "Curious Question Here..." http://www.feldgrau.net/phpBB2/viewtopi ... ght=poland
in which I argued that:

Britain didn't really go to war in 1939 to save Poland for Poland's sake.
They went to war because they concluded that a resurgent Germany could not be trusted and had to forcibly restrained. I would suggest that Poland was, as it were, simply the straw that broke the camels back.
In other words, the grand-strategic aim was not protecting Polish territory, it was stopping Germany.

Moreover a British guarantee of Poland against Germany was as capable as a guarantee of Mexico against the United States. Hitler naturally knew this and declined to be deterred by such palpable bluff.

It was no bluff -- it was an ultimatum and Britain (even under Chamberlain) meant it. As to their power to back it up with action, well they followed through on that too, didn't they? Last time I checked it was Germany who lost.

... the Polish Corridor... had been a territorial device of the Versailles peace-makers which for the next twenty years intelligent people in Britain and elsewhere had condemned as an impossible political arrangement.

There's an old canard I'm happy to tackle head-on. What was so unworkable about the corridor? Presumably you are thinking that seperated territory is inherently unworkable, but that is bollocks. How much trouble has their been with Alaska's physical seperation from the lower 48 states? There is only trouble with arrangements like this when there is some other problem present (such as irredentist claims).

On the broader question of the much maligned Treaty of Verseilles, a few months ago in this forum I offered to defend it against all critics. If you wish, start a new thread on the subject.

[oleg]

With an exception of this I would agree (more or less) with everything you said.

There's an old canard I'm happy to tackle head-on. What was so unworkable about the corridor? Presumably you are thinking that seperated territory is inherently unworkable, but that is bollocks. How much trouble has their been with Alaska's physical seperation from the lower 48 states? There is only trouble with arrangements like this when there is some other problem present (such as irredentist claims).

That’s a false analogy since Alaska was not taken from Canada by US with military force of its own or with aid from the 3rd party. Consequently Canada had no claims to the territory and as such it was no pint of friction between itself and the US.

[Buligwyf]

Why should Germany have adhered to any of Englands ultimatums? If anybody could be accused of expansionism I would say that Britain was a world class leader in this aspect, and has declared more wars than any other nations to do so. As far as Germany loosing once again Britain prooved itself a professional bum by doing everything to provoke foreign armies into fighting its battles. You may have won the war, but it certainly was not you who kept the Bolcheviks out of Europe. That was better left to the likes of the SS.

[oleg]

Why should Germany have adhered to any of Englands ultimatums? If anybody could be accused of expansionism I would say that Britain was a world class leader in this aspect, and has declared more wars than any other nations to do so. As far as Germany loosing once again Britain prooved itself a professional bum by doing everything to provoke foreign armies into fighting its battles. You may have won the war, but it certainly was not you who kept the Bolcheviks out of Europe. That was better left to the likes of the SS.

Why should Germany have adhered to any of Englands ultimatums?

So to avoid the war with later.

If anybody could be accused of expansionism I would say that Britain was a world class leader in this aspect, and has declared more wars than any other nations to do so.

Right… That’s a logical fallacy though. If you think that was Britain did was wrong (expansionism) you can’t think that Germany did the right thing by acting in the same manner.

As far as Germany loosing once again Britain prooved itself a professional bum by doing everything to provoke foreign armies into fighting its battles. You may have won the war, but it certainly was not you who kept the Bolcheviks out of Europe. That was better left to the likes of the SS.

Last time I checked what stopped the “Bolsheviks” from hitting the English channel was Soviet high command acting on agreement with allied powers and not the W-SS, which for all intents and purposes ceased to be relevant alongside with the German war machine.

[Achilles]

certainly was not you who kept the Bolcheviks out of Europe. That was better left to the likes of the SS.

The same SS and Wehrmacht that had been utterly destroyed by May 1945?

[Buligwyf]

In 1941 after the Balkan campaign, when Germany placed 10 divisions along the entire Soviet border, Russia had 247 military formations positioned along their German border. I would say that this would give better reason for a pre-emptive strike than what we have witnessed in modern times. Anyway, as a Finn I have very little to thank the British. From a military viewpoint, as far as pounding your chests for the great victory over Germany; It was an uneven match with impossible odds and took the mobilisation of half the world to subdue them. I would like to have seen the outcome given the recources at the allies disposal.

[oleg]

In 1941 after the Balkan campaign, when Germany placed 10 divisions along the entire Soviet border, Russia had 247 military formations positioned along their German border.

What is that suppose to mean? That German invasion force for Barbarossa consisted of 10 divsions? And 247 “formations”. What the hell is “formation” ?

I would say that this would give better reason for a pre-emptive strike than what we have witnessed in modern times.

What preemptive strike? There was nothing about preemption in German war plans. It was an act of aggression –pure and simple.

Anyway, as a Finn I have very little to thank the British.

I don’t think any Britt really gives a damn. I definitely would not I was one.

From a military viewpoint, as far as pounding your chests for the great victory over Germany; It was an uneven match with impossible odds and took the mobilisation of half the world to subdue them. I would like to have seen the outcome given the recources at the allies disposal.

Firstly Germany did not fight this war alone. Secondly, in perspective, Germany lost the WW II on EF when it failed to achieve the goals it set itself thus turning what was supposed to be relatively short conflict into prolonged war for which it was ill prepared. That happed because of the titanic efforts on part USSR as well faulty German planning –half the world hardly had anything to do with it.

[PaulJ]

... Britain prooved itself a professional bum by doing everything to provoke foreign armies into fighting its battles.

You flatter Britain.

You suggest that the UK was able to clearly identify its grand-strategic objectives and then successfully get other nations to work towards those aims for them. So ... if that were true what would be bad about that? Other than perhaps that you are jealous of such an outstanding success at geo-strategic realpolitik?

[Dr. Beat]

You may have won the war, but it certainly was not you who kept the Bolcheviks out of Europe. That was better left to the likes of the SS.

Does that mean the SS was doing the right thing by slaughtering Russians?

What is your beef with Britian anyway? Did a Brit run over your dog or something?

[Kutscher]

That happed because of the titanic efforts on part USSR as well faulty German planning –half the world hardly had anything to do with it.

I would be the first to recognize the overwhelming contribution of the USSR to the defeat of Hitler. Without that contribution, his defeat would have had to await the U.S. atomic bomb. However.....

If Germany had had the 2,300 planes and 3-4,000 airmen lost in the Battle of Britain available at the start of Barbarossa, and/or the entire Afrika Corps available for the Eastern Front in 1941-42, the result would likely have been quite different.

And let us not forget that Britain and the U.S. supplied some 80% of the trucks used by the USSR and enough rations to feed your entire army for the duration of the War.

[oleg]

That happed because of the titanic efforts on part USSR as well faulty German planning –half the world hardly had anything to do with it.

I would be the first to recognize the overwhelming contribution of the USSR to the defeat of Hitler. Without that contribution, his defeat would have had to await the U.S. atomic bomb. However.....

If Germany had had the 2,300 planes and 3-4,000 airmen lost in the Battle of Britain available at the start of Barbarossa, and/or the entire Afrika Corps available for the Eastern Front in 1941-42, the result would likely have been quite different.

And let us not forget that Britain and the U.S. supplied some 80% of the trucks used by the USSR and enough rations to feed your entire army for the duration of the War.

If Germany had had the 2,300 planes and 3-4,000 airmen lost in the Battle of Britain available at the start of Barbarossa, and/or the entire Afrika Corps available for the Eastern Front in 1941-42, the result would likely have been quite different.

With all due respect you are putting cart before the horse. When GB was fighting “battle for itself” it was hardly thinking of USSR. As for Africa Corps – German 1941 camping in USSR broke down and ultimately failed because its logistics was not able to sustain the effort. Bringing more troops would probably have effect in opposition to the one desired.

And let us not forget that Britain and the U.S. supplied some 80% of the trucks used by the USSR and enough rations to feed your entire army for the duration of the War

We could remember that if it was the case. It is not however. Te largest share of LL transport in the Soviet Army was somewhere in the vicinity of 30% and that was achieved late in 1945 (during the war with Japan) –same goes for the ratios. LL was important but ultimately it began to tell from the second half of 1943.


Trucks, pickups, buses and special trucks (in descending order for 1945), 65.1% of vehicles

GAZ, SU (53.5% of trucks)
ZIS, SU (27.6% of trucks) (AMO are in Others)
Studebaker, US ( 5.6% of trucks)
Ford, US,DE,CAN,GB ( 4.7% of trucks)
Chevrolet, US, CAN ( 2.4% of trucks)
Opel, DEU ( 1.3% of trucks)
International, US ( 1.3% of trucks)
Others: ( 3.6% of trucks)


Cars (in descending order for 1945), 16.7% of vehicles


GAZ, SU (30.8% of cars)
Opel, DEU (23.9% of cars)
Mercedes-Benz, DEU ( 9.8% of cars)
ZIS, SU ( 6.5% of cars)
Ford, US, DEU, GBR ( 3.3% of cars)
Willys, US ( 3.3% of cars)
Adler, DEU ( 2.9% of cars)
Wanderer, DEU ( 2.7% of cars)
BMW, DEU ( 2.4% of cars)
DKW, DEU ( 2.3% of cars)
FIAT, ITA ( 1.4% of cars)
Tatra, CS ( 1.2% of cars)
Hanomag, DEU ( 1.2% of
cars)
Steyr, AUT ( 1.2% of cars)
Others: ( 7.1% of cars)


Horch, DEU
Skoda, CS
Dodge, US
Chevrolet, US, PL
NSU-FIAT, DEU
Hansa, DEU
Buick, US, DEU
Audi, DEU
Renault, FRA
Maybach, DEU
Praga, CS
Plymouth, US
Citroлn, FRA
Peugeot, FRA
Packard, US
Studebaker, US


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Motorcycles, only 125cc and more (in descending order for 1945), 18.2% of vehicles


BMW, DEU (22.3% of motorcycles)
DKW, DEU (14.7% of motorcycles)
Zьndapp, DEU (12.6% of motorcycles)
Harley-Davidson, US (11.4% of motorcycles)
NSU, DEU (10.2% of motorcycles)

TIZ, SU ( 4.8% of motorcycles)
M-72, SU ( 3.4% of motorcycles)
IZh, SU ( 2.9% of motorcycles)
Indian, US ( 2.7% of motorcycles)
L, SU ( 1.7% of motorcycles)
Triumph, GBR, DEU ( 1.5% of motorcycles)
Victoria, DEU ( 1.5% of motorcycles)
Puch, AUT ( 1.2% of motorcycles)
Others ( 9.1% of motorcycles):

BSA, GB
Ardie, DEU
Standard, DEU
Jawa, CS
Tornax, DEU
Velocette, GB
Terrot, FRA (no pictures, only list)
PMZ, SU
Ariel, GB
Sokol, PL
Horex-Columbus, DEU
Hercules, DEU
Gilera, ITA (under construction, 86k b/w image only)
Ogar, CS
D-Rad, DEU
Wanderer, DEU

[sid guttridge]

Hi Buligwyf,

As it turned out, Hitler was always a threat to the entire international community, but as long as he restricted himself to claiming ethnic Germans for the Reich the international community lacked the justification to physically oppose him.

However, as many such as Churchill had suspected and as he had himself written, Hitler wasn't only interested in reclaiming Germans for the Reich, but in acquiring territory off other peoples. In March 1939 he effectively annexed Czech Bohemia-Moravia, thereby giving the international community the evidence it needed that he was not merely interested in restoring Germans to the Reich. It would have been justified in going to war at that stage, but instead set Hitler a trip wire in the form of the public Anglo-French guarantee to Poland. He consciously and willingly triggered it in September 1939 in the full knowledge that the Anglo-French were obliged to come in against him.

The Polish Corridor was not a "device", even if Versailles made it wider than demographic evidence would support. I have a 1900 German atlas based on German census returns that shows that Germans were not then a majority in a clear path to the Baltic. Poles and Kashubes were more numerous in this area.

Yup. Britain always seeks allies. Is this somehow inadvisable or wrong?

Cheers,

Sid.