View Full Version : Lessons From Nuremberg
GEORGE ORWELL is usually a footsure guide across political battlegrounds. In late 1943, when the tide had turned in the Allies’ favor, he wrote about postwar trials. Oddly, he advocated Hitler and Mussolini slipping away. His verdict for them would not be death unless the Germans and Italians themselves carried out summary executions (as they eventually did in Mussolini’s case).
He wanted “no martyrizing, no St. Helena business.” Above all, he disdained the idea of a “solemn hypocritical ‘trial of war criminals,’ with all the slow cruel pageantry of the law, which after a lapse of time has so strange a way of focusing a romantic light on the accused and turning a scoundrel into a hero.”
For once Orwell missed his step. The Allies did stage a trial of the Nazi war criminals, at Nuremberg. (My father, Hartley, was the chief British prosecutor.) The trial had flaws. To some it will always seem to be “victors’ justice” and it can be called hypocritical in that the Soviet Union, guilty of many of its own crimes against humanity, was an equal partner with the democratic prosecutors and judges.
But, over all, it succeeded very well. It was solemn, as it should have been, and what Orwell called “the pageantry of the law” was neither cruel nor slow — the trial began in November 1945 (remarkably this was only six months after the German surrender) and was all over by the following October. Would that anything could be done so efficiently today.
Most of the Nazi defendants were found guilty and executed, others were given lesser sentences and some were acquitted. Orwell’s fear that they would later be cast in a romantic light and turned from scoundrels into heroes has not been realized. They are still seen as mass murderers.
Nuremberg not only dispatched justice swiftly, it also created a historical narrative that has survived. Robert H. Jackson, the chief American prosecutor and the driving force behind the trials, told President Harry S. Truman that he had assembled more than five million pages of evidence. The files of the SS alone needed six freight cars to carry them. Subsequently the tribunal published 11 volumes of documents and 20 volumes devoted to the proceedings alone. The eminent British historian Alan Bullock wrote of his excitement at reading through these records: whatever the arguments about justice, “from the point of view of the historian the Nuremberg trials were an absolutely unqualified wonder.” Nuremberg was essential in creating memory and senses of responsibility, in Germany itself and far beyond.
Nuremberg, lest we forget, was a military tribunal with civilian lawyers and it offered far fewer protections to the Nazis in the dock than the military commissions at Guantánamo will give to Khalid Shaikh Mohammed and his co-defendants in the 9/11 attacks. Military justice worked then and it can work again today.
This is not the place to repeat the fierce disputes over President Obama’s decision last week to prosecute Mr. Mohammed before a military commission instead of a civilian court. What they show above all is that there are no absolute truths; law is argument.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/10/opinion/10shawcross.html?hp
Note: April 9, 2011
The description of this set is clearly readable
Feuer Frei!
04-11-11, 12:05 AM
The Nuremberg trials are important for a number of reasons. Out of the trials came such important advances as The Genocide Convention, The Geneva Convention, modern medical ethics, and modern war crime principles. As well as that, it brought two great legal theories into direct conflict. This is big stuff. This was the crime of the past 200 years, and it was the trial as well.
Much can be inferred from the speech given at the opening of the trial of the Major War Criminals.** Robert H Jackson, the lead prosecutor, as proceedings began, gave the following address: “The privilege of opening the first trial in history for crimes against the peace of the world imposes a grave responsibility. The wrongs which we seek to condemn and punish have been so calculated, so malignant, and so devastating that civilization cannot tolerate their being ignored because it cannot survive their being repeated. That four great nations, flushed with victory and stung with injury, stay the hand of vengeance and voluntarily submit their captive enemies to the judgement of the law is one of the most significant tributes that Power ever has paid to Reason.”
Jackson wanted to make it clear that in this action, the Allies were taking the moral high ground.
If we look back at Nuremberg now, it is still with a sense of resolve, that the right thing was done. The Nazi leaders weren’t just walked into the woods to die. This trial began a new age under the rule of law, and demonstrated the moral superiority of the Allied powers over the Axis evil they defeated.
But what law were they tried under? Many of their actions were committed in Germany. A Nazi Germany, with laws written by the very men being tried. Take, for example, the enforced sterilisation of those deemed to be “deficient”. These were sanctioned by a 1933 German law that these men had authored. So what law had they broken? Under what statute could they be tried? Under the laws of their own land, where most of the actions had occurred, none.
However, the trials were not conducted under the laws of Germany. Nor were they tried under the legal systems of any of the victorious Allies. Instead, they were tried under the London Charter of the International Military Tribunal.
The defence lawyers’ first act was to challenge the legitimacy of the court, stating that this was ex post facto law, and not law at all***. This was quickly rebuffed, by referring to Article 3. The challenge to the Charter was referred to the Charter, found to be invalid under the Charter, and struck out under the Charter.
That unimpeachable moral authority isn’t looking so good now, is it?
If this was to be a fair trial, as Jackson argued so passionately at the start of the proceedings, then surely the judges involved would be drawn from the neutral nations? One would expect the bench to occupied by the Swiss, Swedish and Irish judiciary. Surely, this trial could not be fair if the the judiciary were drawn from the ranks of the aggrieved? The judges were all from the victorious Allied nations. Surely, if this trial was fair, all of the other trials at Nuremberg would be conducted under the same charter, along the same lines? In fact, all the other trials were conducted under American law. The doctors, judges, and all the others were not tried under the London Charter. Any problems of the relative jurisdiction being thousands of miles away were ignored, as it was felt that a mature legal system would best take the place of the despoiled German system. There is a strong argument for this approach, despite the obvious difficulty, but it wasn’t felt to be strong enough for the trial of the Major War Criminals.
The Nuremberg trials were meant to begin the healing process, to apply a salve to the world’s wounds. It was also meant to help Germany get back on its feet after it had been corrupted and brought to the brink of destruction. It didn’t really work. German popular opinion quickly pegged it as a show trial, and grew resentful. They felt they had suffered enough, and now that they were being dragged through this by proxy. The criticisms weren’t just limited to the populace of defeated Axis powers. Some contemporary commentators also felt that the stated virtues of the Nuremberg trials were just smokescreens, and that this was an elaborate show trial. One Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court called the trial a fraud, and referred to Jackson’s “High-grade lynching.”
Nuremberg achieved much, and changed our world. It redefined what law was in the modern age, and what it could be used for.
A fact and a shame that the German legal system wasn't up to it to deal with this at that time.
The Nuremberg trials are important for a number of reasons. Out of the trials came such important advances as The Genocide Convention, The Geneva Convention, modern medical ethics, and modern war crime principles. As well as that, it brought two great legal theories into direct conflict. This is big stuff. This was the crime of the past 200 years, and it was the trial as well.
Much can be inferred from the speech given at the opening of the trial of the Major War Criminals.** Robert H Jackson, the lead prosecutor, as proceedings began, gave the following address: “The privilege of opening the first trial in history for crimes against the peace of the world imposes a grave responsibility. The wrongs which we seek to condemn and punish have been so calculated, so malignant, and so devastating that civilization cannot tolerate their being ignored because it cannot survive their being repeated. That four great nations, flushed with victory and stung with injury, stay the hand of vengeance and voluntarily submit their captive enemies to the judgement of the law is one of the most significant tributes that Power ever has paid to Reason.”
Jackson wanted to make it clear that in this action, the Allies were taking the moral high ground.
If we look back at Nuremberg now, it is still with a sense of resolve, that the right thing was done. The Nazi leaders weren’t just walked into the woods to die. This trial began a new age under the rule of law, and demonstrated the moral superiority of the Allied powers over the Axis evil they defeated.
But what law were they tried under? Many of their actions were committed in Germany. A Nazi Germany, with laws written by the very men being tried. Take, for example, the enforced sterilisation of those deemed to be “deficient”. These were sanctioned by a 1933 German law that these men had authored. So what law had they broken? Under what statute could they be tried? Under the laws of their own land, where most of the actions had occurred, none.
However, the trials were not conducted under the laws of Germany. Nor were they tried under the legal systems of any of the victorious Allies. Instead, they were tried under the London Charter of the International Military Tribunal.
The defence lawyers’ first act was to challenge the legitimacy of the court, stating that this was ex post facto law, and not law at all***. This was quickly rebuffed, by referring to Article 3. The challenge to the Charter was referred to the Charter, found to be invalid under the Charter, and struck out under the Charter.
That unimpeachable moral authority isn’t looking so good now, is it?
If this was to be a fair trial, as Jackson argued so passionately at the start of the proceedings, then surely the judges involved would be drawn from the neutral nations? One would expect the bench to occupied by the Swiss, Swedish and Irish judiciary. Surely, this trial could not be fair if the the judiciary were drawn from the ranks of the aggrieved? The judges were all from the victorious Allied nations. Surely, if this trial was fair, all of the other trials at Nuremberg would be conducted under the same charter, along the same lines? In fact, all the other trials were conducted under American law. The doctors, judges, and all the others were not tried under the London Charter. Any problems of the relative jurisdiction being thousands of miles away were ignored, as it was felt that a mature legal system would best take the place of the despoiled German system. There is a strong argument for this approach, despite the obvious difficulty, but it wasn’t felt to be strong enough for the trial of the Major War Criminals.
The Nuremberg trials were meant to begin the healing process, to apply a salve to the world’s wounds. It was also meant to help Germany get back on its feet after it had been corrupted and brought to the brink of destruction. It didn’t really work. German popular opinion quickly pegged it as a show trial, and grew resentful. They felt they had suffered enough, and now that they were being dragged through this by proxy. The criticisms weren’t just limited to the populace of defeated Axis powers. Some contemporary commentators also felt that the stated virtues of the Nuremberg trials were just smokescreens, and that this was an elaborate show trial. One Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court called the trial a fraud, and referred to Jackson’s “High-grade lynching.”
Nuremberg achieved much, and changed our world. It redefined what law was in the modern age, and what it could be used for.
A fact and a shame that the German legal system wasn't up to it to deal with this at that time. So true!
From the theoretical point of view I agree with what Feuer Frei has said. It was obviously a breakthrough in the terms of international law.
From the practical point of view it was a typical witch-hunt. This becomes striking when you compare the 22 sentences (David Irving's Nuremberg: The Last Battle is a good read) and R.Rudenko's reaction to the accusations made against the soviets who, simply speaking, were the German allies up to 1941. I guess I don't have to remind what Ribbentrop-Molotov pact was. Or who helped the Germans to invade Poland.
I would call this trial a major victory of the legal regulations and a great defeat of moral standards.
From the theoretical point of view I agree with what Feuer Frei has said. It was obviously a breakthrough in the terms of international law.
From the practical point of view it was a typical witch-hunt. This becomes striking when you compare the 22 sentences (David Irving's Nuremberg: The Last Battle is a good read) and R.Rudenko's reaction to the accusations made against the soviets who, simply speaking, were the German allies up to 1941. I guess I don't to remind what Ribbentrop-Molotov pact was. Or who helped the Germans to invade Poland.
I would call this trial a major victory of the legal regulations and a great defeat of moral standards. This links belong here,
http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=182097
Catfish
04-11-11, 06:56 AM
Agree to the above, however this was - not only due to the Soviet Union having invaded Poland as much as Germany, but never declared war to by the british - a bit (!) hypocritical.
A lot of greater Nazis went to South Americaafter the war, actively helped by the "Kameradenwerk" and the american O.S.S. (the later CIA), or remained unaccused in high positions in Germany, to further serve "the West" against communism.
Not mentioning the scientists serving in the USSR and the US after the war, in the US the hunt for "Nazi" scientists was called "Operation paperclip".
They even continued german programs of testing vaccines against Malaria on american prisoners, with thousands dieing in the US :nope:
Old joke: A peasant draws small fruits out of the soil, when a US sergeant asks him what he's doing.
The peasant answers "De-nazification ! I pull out the small ones, so the already big ones get fatter."
Greetings,
Catfish
Agree to the above, however this was - not only due to the Soviet Union having invaded Poland as much as Germany, but never declared war to by the british - a bit (!) hypocritical.
A lot of greater Nazis went to South Americaafter the war, actively helped by the "Kameradenwerk" and the american O.S.S. (the later CIA), or remained unaccused in high positions in Germany, to further serve "the West" against communism.
Not mentioning the scientists serving in the USSR and the US after the war, in the US the hunt for "Nazi" scientists was called "Operation paperclip".
They even continued german programs of testing vaccines against Malaria on american prisoners, with ten thousands dieing in the US :nope:
Old joke: A peasant draws small fruits out of the soil, when a US sergeant asks him what he's doing.
The peasant answers "De-nazification ! I pull out the small ones, so the already big ones get fatter."
Greetings,
Catfish with ten thousands dieing [I]in the US,yes, unfortunately, regrettable, but it happened to other countries also, not because it gets better, but having said this, it was war, and everything went very quickly in the course of events.
This links belong here,
http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=182097
well, does it?
Catfish
04-11-11, 07:23 AM
Hello,
with ten thousands dieing [I]in the US,yes, unfortunately, regrettable, but it happened to other countries also, not because it gets better, but having said this, it was war, and everything went very quickly in the course of events.
It did not begin with "the war", nor did it end with it.
I did not mean this as an excuse or comparison for Nazi atrocities, but that the US were obviously not so morally superior if they used the very scum they fought against, without a conviction, for their own ideas.
This almost lead to a revolution in Germany in 1968, when a well "re-educated" anti-nazi youth found out they were still governed by those responsible for the war, in jurisdiction, politics and industry, and furthermore actively helped by the CIA, and thus the US.
Greetings,
Catfish
well, does it? Yes, it depends on what part you can think of, because I posted it, the content consists of several separate parts and Poland is one of them
Hello,
It did not begin with "the war", nor did it end with it.
I did not mean this as an excuse or comparison for Nazi atrocities, but that the US were obviously not so morally superior if they used the very scum they fought against, without a conviction, for their own ideas.
This almost lead to a revolution in Germany in 1968, when a well "re-educated" anti-nazi youth found out they were still governed by those responsible for the war, in jurisdiction, politics and industry, and furthermore actively helped by the CIA, and thus the US.
Greetings,
Catfish This has apparently been a misunderstanding of words, I have not claimed that you "started" with the war that word, and there have been away from my side, I apologize ... can hardly blame the 40 Hrs lack of sleep..
Bilge_Rat
04-11-11, 08:17 AM
Nuremberg was unavoidable after the full extent of nazi crimes became known. There are a couple of good books on it, for example this one which I read some years back:
http://www.amazon.com/Justice-at-Nuremberg-Robert-Conot/dp/0881840327/ref=sr_1_3?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1302527157&sr=1-3#_
On the whole, the trials were very fair and even most Germans agreed with that assessment at the time.
The biggest problem was that the trials were rushed and there was so much evidence that not all of it was presented at the trial.
For example, if the full extent of Speer's complicity in the slave labour program had been exposed, he would have been sentenced to death, as he should have been.
The only other sentence I would quibble with would be the death sentence for Jodl and Keitel. In their positions as chief of staff, they were not really in a position to give orders. A 20 year sentence would have been more appropriate.
As for what happened after the war, the initial plan was to have a whole series of trials and intense de-Nazification. However, once the Cold War began and the Soviet Union became the enemy, it became more important to concentrate on the present rather than dwell on the past.
Hitler feared if he was taken by the Russians, Stalin would put him on display in a zoo.
Feuer Frei!
04-11-11, 08:43 AM
Hitler feared if he was taken by the Russians, Stalin would put him on display in a zoo.
Says the Kettle calling the pot black.
Bilge_Rat
04-11-11, 08:49 AM
If Hitler had been captured by the Russians, he would have met the same fate as Stalin's collaborators: extensive "interrogation" at the hand of the NKVD, a show trial were he would make a full confession of his crimes followed by a quick execution.
Feuer Frei!
04-11-11, 08:56 AM
The questions are endless. The answers are purely speculative, but fascinating to consider.
The only other sentence I would quibble with would be the death sentence for Jodl and Keitel. In their positions as chief of staff, they were not really in a position to give orders. A 20 year sentence would have been more appropriate.
from wiki about Jodl:
"On 28 February 1953, the München Hauptspruchkammer (Main denazification court) declared Jodl not guilty of the main charges brought against him at Nuremberg,(...)"
Hitler feared if he was taken by the Russians, Stalin would put him on display in a zoo.
he used the word "panopticum" to be precise :O:
Tribesman
04-11-11, 09:43 AM
The only other sentence I would quibble with would be the death sentence for Jodl and Keitel. In their positions as chief of staff, they were not really in a position to give orders. A 20 year sentence would have been more appropriate.
If they were not in a position to give orders how comes so many of the documents ordering major war crimes were in their handwriting?
OK you can maybe get a "pass" on orders they just signed as chiefs of staff for all their subordinates to follow, though that "pass" would under the terms still merit the full penalty.
Gammelpreusse
04-11-11, 10:02 AM
The problem with Nuremberg, from a German perspective, is not so much the issue at "that" time. Giving those thugs a trial was probably the best thing to do, it itself it was a very idealistic endeavor and was perfect to avoid martyrdom.
It rather is that the standards applied there were never met by the victorious nations themselves, neither before, during or after the war. A good point for illustrating this is "plotting for a war of aggression", many German military personal were sued on these grounds. I do not have to mention recent events in this regard.
Another problem is that the US was overly happy to play judge, but when it came to the international court of justice, the first attempt to institutionalize these mechanics on a global level, particularly inspired by the Nuremberg trials, many US based newspapers even threatened with invasion should one American ever be trialled there. That did not exactly give the impression those medias probably hoped for.
So from here the Nuremberg trials stand out as exemplary how to deal with criminal governments in general, however this view is not extended to the benefit of the nations that conducted this trial in terms of moral high ground.
The problem with Nuremberg, from a German perspective, is not so much the issue at "that" time. Giving those thugs a trial was probably the best thing to do, it itself it was a very idealistic endeavor and was perfect to avoid martyrdom.
It rather is that the standards applied there were never met by the victorious nations themselves, neither before, during or after the war. A good point for illustrating this is "plotting for a war of aggression", many German military personal were sued on these grounds. I do not have to mention recent events in this regard.
Another problem is that the US was overly happy to play judge, but when it came to the international court of justice, the first attempt to institutionalize these mechanics on a global level, particularly inspired by the Nuremberg trials, many US based newspapers even threatened with invasion should one American ever be trialled there. That did not exactly give the impression those medias probably hoped for.
So from here the Nuremberg trials stand out as exemplary how to deal with criminal governments in general, however this view is not extended to the benefit of the nations that conducted this trial in terms of moral high ground. You seem to be well oriented, and you should have credit for.
Bilge_Rat
04-11-11, 10:53 AM
If they were not in a position to give orders how comes so many of the documents ordering major war crimes were in their handwriting?
OK you can maybe get a "pass" on orders they just signed as chiefs of staff for all their subordinates to follow, though that "pass" would under the terms still merit the full penalty.
re: Jodl and Keitel. Agree they were culpable, the issue is more proportionality of the sentence.
They were initially chosen as a representative of, respectively, the Heer and the Wehrmacht and not because they were outstanding war criminals. Certain orders they signed did go beyond their duties and were war crimes. However, Doenitz who signed similar orders was given 10 years. Speer who was a top Nazi and oversaw the entire slave labour program was given 20 years. Many German generals who signed similar orders on the OstFront received similar prison sentences (Von Manstein: 18 years, reduced to 12)or were never charged.
so yes, I would think a 20 year sentence would have been more in line with other similar sentences.
Jimbuna
04-11-11, 01:21 PM
re: Jodl and Keitel. Agree they were culpable, the issue is more proportionality of the sentence.
They were initially chosen as a representative of, respectively, the Heer and the Wehrmacht and not because they were outstanding war criminals. Certain orders they signed did go beyond their duties and were war crimes. However, Doenitz who signed similar orders was given 10 years. Speer who was a top Nazi and oversaw the entire slave labour program was given 20 years. Many German generals who signed similar orders on the OstFront received similar prison sentences (Von Manstein: 18 years, reduced to 12)or were never charged.
so yes, I would think a 20 year sentence would have been more in line with other similar sentences.
Agreed....I never thought the trials were conducted on 'a level playing field'.
Fish In The Water
04-11-11, 03:16 PM
For example, if the full extent of Speer's complicity in the slave labour program had been exposed, he would have been sentenced to death, as he should have been.
Politically difficult to invoke the death penalty and then turn around and absorb the fruits of the V2 rocket program. Yes it was largely developed on slave labor, and yes many thousands died to make it a reality, (although this was more a result of manpower shortages, i.e. necessity - than design); nevertheless, the question of American culpability could be raised.
In other words, if the Allies had fully demonized Speer it could have caused guilt by association to become a legitimate question. Much better to adopt a relative morality and say Speer was really bad, (but what we're doing with his work is good), rather than claim Speer was evil, (but we intend to go ahead and profit off the deaths of slaves anyway).
If they had adopted the later approach, many might have begun wondering why 'the good guys' would stoop to associating themselves with anything so rooted in evil. At the very least it makes for bad public relations, so best to draw a fictitious line and call it bad but not evil.
Bilge_Rat
04-11-11, 04:11 PM
The truth is actually much simpler.
Goering convinced most of the defendants to follow his line of defence of denying responsibility for everything.
Speer took a different tack, accepting collective responsiblity, while fudging the details of his personal involvement. Not all the evidence against Speer was found and presented at Court. Speer was a sympathetic character and was able to portray himself as a naive young man who had been fooled by Hitler.
On the larger issue of "Allied culpability", I don't see any of it. The Germans started the war and tried to conquer all of Europe, the Germans murdered 6,000,000 jews, 4,000,000 Soviet POWs, etc., etc.
After the war, the Allies set up the tribunals to punish the guilty. There were 13 trials in all, against 200 defendants stretching all the way into 1949. How many Germans should they have locked up to not feel guilty? 10,000? 100,000? 1,000,000?
By 1948, after taking down the worst dictator in modern history, the US was facing the second worst dictator in modern history. Stalin had staged coups in every country in eastern europe and was "purging" their government. Stalin had shipped off every German scientist he could get his hands on to the USSR and was working on an atomic bomb.
What should the US have done? should they have said: Oh no, we can't deal with any German scientist who worked for the Nazis! Better to remain pure even if it means the Communists will take over all of Europe! :damn:
Platapus
04-11-11, 05:59 PM
Anyone read "other losses" by James Bacque?
Freiwillige
04-11-11, 09:33 PM
The truth is actually much simpler.
Goering convinced most of the defendants to follow his line of defence of denying responsibility for everything.
Speer took a different tack, accepting collective responsiblity, while fudging the details of his personal involvement. Not all the evidence against Speer was found and presented at Court. Speer was a sympathetic character and was able to portray himself as a naive young man who had been fooled by Hitler.
On the larger issue of "Allied culpability", I don't see any of it. The Germans started the war and tried to conquer all of Europe, the Germans murdered 6,000,000 jews, 4,000,000 Soviet POWs, etc., etc.
After the war, the Allies set up the tribunals to punish the guilty. There were 13 trials in all, against 200 defendants stretching all the way into 1949. How many Germans should they have locked up to not feel guilty? 10,000? 100,000? 1,000,000?
By 1948, after taking down the worst dictator in modern history, the US was facing the second worst dictator in modern history. Stalin had staged coups in every country in eastern europe and was "purging" their government. Stalin had shipped off every German scientist he could get his hands on to the USSR and was working on an atomic bomb.
What should the US have done? should they have said: Oh no, we can't deal with any German scientist who worked for the Nazis! Better to remain pure even if it means the Communists will take over all of Europe! :damn:
Makes a good story doesn't it? Sells our culpability a bit easier? WWII is a little more complex than the age old "Hitler was gonna conquer the world!" speech.
World war two started because Germany and Russia conquered and divided Poland. Ribbentrop\Molotov pact. Poland was to cease to exist.
France and England in turn declared war on Germany but not Russia????
German's were shocked that they would go to war over Poland and rather abruptly threw plans for war in the west together. In fact their first plan was the same Schifflin plan of WWI!
It is now known that dum fuhrer wanted England as Allies not enemy's and had little interest west.
Catfish
04-12-11, 07:25 AM
I also wonder why England did not declare war to Russia as well, after both Russia and Germany invaded Poland, and split it up between them ?
As well Hitler did ot want to conquer the world, he was not even prepared well enough for Russia.
Hitler's plan was to gain "space in the east", and Russia was the one target, so he had to get his troops through Poland anyway.
Germany and Russia invaded/split up Poland (Ribbentrop\Molotov), with Stalin not expecting Germany to attack him.
So England and France declare war to Germany, because they have a treaty with Poland - but they only declare war to Germany - not Russia.
To not get the same trench situation in the west like in WW1, and to be forced to fight a two-front war, Hitler again uses the Schlieffen plan invading France, but this time he is victorious (at first, ahem).
Then England tries to strangle Germany again with a blockade, at the same time trying to invade Norway, to also strangle the iron ore resources going to Germany.
So Hitler tries to invade Norway before England does (needing Denmark for the march-through, while Sweden remains neutral), and succeeds while losing almost all destroyers and a few cruisers at Narvik.
Then Mussolini runs into problems and asks Hitler to help him in Greece and especially Crete garrisoned by England, and also in the rest of the mediterranean area. So the sh!t really hit the fan, but it was not "world domination" Hitler had in mind.
Greetings,
Catfish
Tribesman
04-12-11, 07:48 AM
I also wonder why England did not declare war to Russia as well
Maybe Britain and Poland hadn't signed up against Russia
Protocol 1
The Government of the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland and the Polish Government are agreed upon the following interpretation of the Agreement of Mutual Assistance signed this day as alone authentic and binding.
1. (a) By the expression "a European Power" employed in the Agreement is to be understood Germany. (b) In the event of action within the meaning of Article 1 or 2 of the Agreement by a European Power other than Germany, the Contracting Parties will consult together on the measures to be taken in common.
Seems pretty clear cut doesn't it, Poland agreed that invasion by any country apart from Germany would only trigger some talks between Britain and Poland.
Catfish
04-12-11, 07:54 AM
Seems pretty clear cut doesn't it, Poland agreed that invasion by any country apart from Germany would only trigger some talks between Britain and Poland.
:o:rotfl2:
But then, it's not soo funny ..
Bilge_Rat
04-12-11, 08:48 AM
WWII is a little more complex than the age old "Hitler was gonna conquer the world!" speech.
lets see: Austria, Czechoslovakia, Poland, Denmark, Norway, Netherlands, Belgium, Luxemburg, France, Yugoslavia, Greece, Russia...I seem to discern a pattern...:ping:
France and England in turn declared war on Germany but not Russia????
Yes, that would have been the wise thing to do, declare war on Germany AND the USSR and garantee that the Nazis would win the war!
There was also some talk about declaring war on the USSR after they invaded Finland, but thankfully wiser heads prevailed.
Bilge_Rat
04-12-11, 09:25 AM
Hitler's plan was to gain "space in the east", and Russia was the one target, so he had to get his troops through Poland anyway.
Germany and Russia invaded/split up Poland (Ribbentrop\Molotov), with Stalin not expecting Germany to attack him.
So England and France declare war to Germany, because they have a treaty with Poland - but they only declare war to Germany - not Russia.
To not get the same trench situation in the west like in WW1, and to be forced to fight a two-front war, Hitler again uses the Schlieffen plan invading France, but this time he is victorious (at first, ahem).
yes, poor misunderstood Hitler, he only wanted to conquer Poland and Russia and enslave or kill off their "inferior" population to make room for the expanding Aryan population. How dare the evil British and French government stand in his way.
Gammelpreusse
04-12-11, 10:19 AM
yes, poor misunderstood Hitler, he only wanted to conquer Poland and Russia and enslave or kill off their "inferior" population to make room for the expanding Aryan population. How dare the evil British and French government stand in his way.
Funny, no? After all that is what these two countries have done for centuries in other parts of the world right up to and after World War 2.
Raptor1
04-12-11, 10:26 AM
To not get the same trench situation in the west like in WW1, and to be forced to fight a two-front war, Hitler again uses the Schlieffen plan invading France, but this time he is victorious (at first, ahem).
This is not quite true, there were substantial differences between the Schlieffen Plan and how Fall Gelb was executed. In fact it was the Allies expecting the Germans to repeat the Schlieffen Plan that contributed greatly to their defeat.
Catfish
04-12-11, 12:17 PM
lets see: Austria, Czechoslovakia, Poland, Denmark, Norway, Netherlands, Belgium, Luxemburg, France, Yugoslavia, Greece, Russia...I seem to discern a pattern...
Well, if you read my post this explains a bit ;)
Yes, that would have been the wise thing to do, declare war on Germany AND the USSR and garantee that the Nazis would win the war! There was also some talk about declaring war on the USSR after they invaded Finland, but thankfully wiser heads prevailed.
There were german "Freikorps", british official troops and US soldiers fighting against Russia in the northeastern baltic states already in 1919, and on until 1939, with a few short interruptions. Churchill had tried to support the white-russian movement immediately after WW1, against the bolsheviks.
Indeed US pilots flew patrols and fighting missions against Russia, for Finnland, long before and into 1939. A few US pilots even ended up in SS divisions, since they had been fighting against Russia for the whole time. Seldomly mentioned, yes.
After all, it was certainly good that Hitler was stopped - however i think it would have been even better without comrade Stalin as an ally as well.
Greetings,
Catfish
Catfish
04-12-11, 12:22 PM
This is not quite true, there were substantial differences between the Schlieffen Plan and how Fall Gelb was executed. In fact it was the Allies expecting the Germans to repeat the Schlieffen Plan that contributed greatly to their defeat.
You are right, i just meant the problem to fight at two fronts was certainly recognized, by Hitler. The tactical execution of "Fall Gelb" was different - but strategically Hiler could not afford to risk the same situation as in 1914/18. He indeed DID risk it, but neither England nor France (nor Germany) did do much in this early so-called "phony" war.
Greetings,
Catfish
vBulletin® v3.8.11, Copyright ©2000-2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.