I never understand why Krigersmarine don't request they terms from France

[predavolk]

Originally Posted by Randomizer

Hitler was a Napoleon fanboy and the highlight of his 1940 trip to Paris was visiting Bonie's tomb. He also visited the Waterloo battlefield during the 1940 campaign in the West.
From the earliest days of the Party, the "Drive to the East" was an integral part of Nazi strategy. Bolshevism had to be destroyed and that meant attacking the Soviet Union; National Socialism could not co-exist with Communism. That was the historical role that Hitler cast for the Third Reich, it overshadowed almost every other consideration, at least until after Kursk. See Allan Bullock Hitler and Nial Ferguson The War of the World.
Good Hunting

Be that as it may, it wouldn't make sense for him to be deterred by the very (relatively) modest task of subduing a semi-friendly, weak Spain versus the logistical nightmare (as demonstrated by Bonie) that would be an attack on the Soviet Union (I say Russia as it was the ultimate target). I absolutely believe it was well within the Wermacht's ability to take Spain. They took far more space in the USSR, in front of equall or greater opposition, in the space of a few months. And the following weather conditions would have been far more favourable.

And it wouldn't have lengthened his defensive line as it would've removed the entire Med, which is were Germany was ultimately first attacked by the Allies (in North Africa, and then through the soft underbelly of Italy!).

But again, perhaps Hitler was too mesmerized with the Soviet Union to consider his own long-term logistic goals.

[moscowexile]

Hitler was simply a flat, uni-dimensional person obsessed with the absolute correctness of his own theories. In his own way, he was very similar to devout Marxists - something that Communists do not like reminding of! He formed his "theories", his Weltausschauung (world outlook) sometime during his bum's life in pre-WWI. He wrote them down when in prison in the early 1920s as Mein Kampf. He never varied, wavered from, or modified his "theories". He was a super egoistic megalomaniac that believed that only he in his own lifetime could change the world into how he thought it should be.

A complete head-banger.

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

I consider myself lucky to be able to read and take part in threads like this one.

Same here. I have nothing but a worthless American education. They stopped educating us many decades ago. I wanted to cry when I met eastern Europens in college that spoke seven languages. To top that off they spoke better english than me!

[Zajcev]

Germany was so punished so severely after WW1 probably because it was the biggest war ever fought at that time, with most casualties, and there was nobody else to punish. Although not intentionally, the war was started by Austrian empire and Russia. But just before Austria-Hungary surrendered, its parts declared independence from it so you couldn't even sign a peace treaty with it. During the breakup, Hungary and Austria were for scraps, with neighbouring countries often taking German/Hungarian populated areas. So obviously the "German rest of monarchy" which was Austria, a little country now couldnt bear the brunt of reparations. Only Germany was available for big financial reparations. You couldn't punish Romania, Czechoslovakia (it was officially recognized as allied nation during WW1, and foreign legions fought for French), or Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes.

Defeated Germany was still, more or less, in one piece in 1918, apart from the Danzig corridor and bits of Silesia ceded to Poland and the Sudetenland to Czechoslovakia.

Sudetenland wasn't ceded to Czechoslovakia, it was always part of Bohemia, but mainly German inhabited land. It couldn't have been given to Germany since it lost the war. Those people never lived in Germany anyway, they lived in Austrian empire. The only way how that trouble could have been prevented was if Austria and Bohemia transformed into one confederation with Austria keeping control of the scattered German speaking population. It couldn't have been awarded to independent Austria, due to fact German speaking population was not located in one area but scattered all over the hilly border.

And it wouldn't have lengthened his defensive line as it would've removed the entire Med, which is were Germany was ultimately first attacked by the Allies (in North Africa, and then through the soft underbelly of Italy!).

Italy was anything but a "soft underbelly", anyone can review the history of the Italian campaign to put that myth to rest. A key element of strategy is not surrendering the initiative to ones opponents and by diving into North Africa to save Mussolini's Empire, Hitler ensured that the British and not the Germans would drive the combat agenda in that theatre. Once German arms were committed to the Med, they became a reactive force, responding to the enemy in a place chosen by the enemy. That's usually a recipe for disaster and so it was for Germany. Good thing too.

Sure Rommel won a series of sometimes brilliant battles but all were just hollow tactical victories. Driving to the oilfields of Persia or to British India through the Middle East was a pipe-dream, any more than casual examination of the geography, space and time issues just shout out the problems. The Suez Canal was entirely irrelevant after Italy's declaration of war June 10th 1940 since that event ended British commercial traffic through the Med entirely. After that it was useful only as a symbol and then only to the British. Capture Suez and what happens? The RN submarine flotilla in Aden chokes off the Red Sea and the Canal cannot even help the Italians save their colonies in East Africa. Ignore it and the strategic situation is unchanged and you free up resources for the main enemy - Stalin.

Germans fighting in Africa did far more for the Allied cause than even a best case result could have helped the Nazi stategic situation. Do not forget that the Bulgarians with a handful of German and Austrian's kept 250,000 Allied soldiers penned up in Salonika from 1915-18. Another "soft underbelly " scheme that did not survive the realities of geography, climate or infrastucture. The ability of the Wehrmacht to conquer Spain is not in question. The wisdom any German action in the Med is like using a hose to water the kitchen plants while the living room burns.

The Allies might have taken the fight to German-held Europe through Italy first and early but the German forces kept them south of Alps and away from vital ground until the bitter end. Doesn't sound like a very soft underbelly at all.
Good Hunting

[predavolk]

It most certainly was a soft underbelly, and your answer avoids the central solution I proposed (by the way, I appreciate the debate!). If Normandy couldn't have happened, they could have pushed through Italy. If Gibraltar had been taken by the Germans, North Africa and Italy would have been irrelevant. Indeed, Italy could have been freed for action in the Atlantic! That would have had a similar effect as the original suggestion of combining France's Navy with Germany's. Perhaps more effective given Italy's familiarity with its own Navy!

Perhaps I'm missing your point, but I can't see how Gibraltar, and the control of the Med, wouldn't have secured Hitler's Europe on all but the Soviet Front. For me, it's the absolutely most logical decision for Hitler in late 1940. Knock Britain completely out of the continent, and reduce them to a purely Atlantic opponent. Delay the attack on the Soviets for a couple of years, reduce Britain to nothing with the help of the Italians, combine an attack with the Japanese on the Soviets when you do attack (if for no other purpose than to confuse a confuseable Stalin), and this armchair, hindsight, general would be very pleased! :p

[moscowexile]

Here's a conundrum concerning WWII that has been debated by historians for years. It's not a "Why didn't Hitler..." question but a "Why did he..." one:

Why did Hitler declare war on the USA?


He needn't have done so.

He wasn't obliged to do so because the Japanase Empire had attacked the United States at Pearl Harbor. (Not that feeling under any legal obligation to fulfill any action would have been a key factor in Hitler's decision making process.)

Hitler's declaration of war on the US was a godsend to Roosevelt and Churchill, in that it brought the US into the European theatre of war; many, if not most, of the US military wanted to concentrate their efforts on the Pacific war, but Roosevelt believed that Hitler had to be dealt with first.

Then der größte Feldherr aller Zeiten (GRÖFAZ) - "the greatest field commander of all time" as Hitler lickspittles called the dictator - did them both, the US President and the British Prime Minister, a great favour.

Why?

Originally Posted by predavolk

It most certainly was a soft underbelly, and your answer avoids the central solution I proposed (by the way, I appreciate the debate!). If Normandy couldn't have happened, they could have pushed through Italy.

Normandy or a cross channel invasion somewhere, was going to happen. Even a cursory review of the many inter-Allied conferences before 12/43 demonstrate that the American's would settle for nothing less and sooner rather than later. It might grate on some to admit it but for all intents and purposes America drove the strategic planning in the European theatre after January 1942. With some fairly minor exceptions of course...

One cannot construct a plausable scenario where the Allies could have advanced up the Italian penninsula faster than they did historically. 19-months after Salerno they had not yet reached the Brenner Pass (seperating Italy from Austria) by May 1945. Even after all of the blood and treasure expended in the Italian campaign. The Allies landed on the Mainland between September 3rd and 9th 1943. Given the lack of landing craft and prepared American forces available in any theatre prior to that date it's difficult to advance that time line (Pearl Harbor +22 months) by too much even without any fighting in North Africa. That assumes that the Americans would be prepared to back Churchill's pie-in-the-sky projects. The overwhelming body of evidence is that they (in the guise of George Marshall) would not bite and Britian would never have launched a unilateral invasion. So the question is answered, the soft underbelly proved very tough.

By the way the Brenner Pass was captured by Allied troops pushing down from the North after German resistance collapsed. The defenders in Italy surrendered on May 2nd 1945, they never routed in that theatre.

North Africa provided the Western Allies with valuable combat experiance (that the Wehrmacht already has institutionalized) but that they could not get without serious ground action. Imagine Normandy or Salerno with entirely green officers, soldiers and combat support. Fighting in the desert worked to the Allies advantage, not to the Germans.

By the way, I too appreciate the discussion, the civil tone here in a hotly debated subject says much (in my opinion) for the Subsim Forum members in general, I think.

Knock Britain completely out of the continent, and reduce them to a purely Atlantic opponent. Delay the attack on the Soviets for a couple of years, reduce Britain

After 1940 Britain was already off the continent that mattered- Europe. They were not coming back alone, even with the Empire/Commonwealth behind them. Ignore the Med and they have nowhere to bite. For the Nazi's, lose North Africa and you have lost nothing. Secure it and you have gained even less.
Good Hunting

Originally Posted by moscowexile

Here's a conundrum concerning WWII that has been debated by historians for years. It's not a "Why didn't Hitler..." question but a "Why did he..." one:

Why did Hitler declare war on the USA?


He needn't have done so.

He wasn't obliged to do so because the Japanase Empire had attacked the United States at Pearl Harbor. (Not that feeling under any legal obligation to fulfill any action would have been a key factor in Hitler's decision making process.)

Hitler's declaration of war on the US was a godsend to Roosevelt and Churchill, in that it brought the US into the European theatre of war; many, if not most, of the US military wanted to concentrate their efforts on the Pacific war, but Roosevelt believed that Hitler had to be dealt with first.

Then der größte Feldherr aller Zeiten (GRÖFAZ) - "the greatest field commander of all time" as Hitler lickspittles called the dictator - did them both, the US President and the British Prime Minister, a great favour.

Why?

A de facto war against America was already being waged in the Atlantic. American warships were escorting convoys as far as Iceland and American marines were already occupiers there. American destroyers had already attacked U-Boats (and vice-versa) and the USN was under standing Executive Branch orders to shadow and attack German surface raiders where located. In hindsight it was foolish since with a better understanding of American domestic politics, not declaring war was the correct thing to do. However, given Hitler's dismissive ignorance of the United States and his blindness to economic reality, it made perfect sense at the time. In my opinion of course.
Good Hunting

[Catfish]

Hello,
very good discussion, we should turn this into a history thread and publish it

There were certainly "contacts" between US american escorts and german U-boats, so even if it was not an official war, and some U-boat commanders demanded action against "neutral" warships giving away their position and helping to hunt them down, there were already a lot of tensions. As well US policy ahad expanded the US american territorial waters to the midst of the atlantic (against international law), and every ship sunk in "their" territory by a U-boat would have instantly led to an american declaration of war. The US were at that time indeed looking for a reason to officially support England, and would use every event to explain it to their people. That was why Germany was so reluctant in taking action against the US, even if they already supported England with their actions.

Then there was the "Momp", the mid-ocean meeting point, where US ships should hand the convoy from "their" territory into British hands, and have it escorted to England. Some of the US escorts would indeed not turn around. As well the position of this "border" was doubtful to say at least.
It is hard enough to distinguish between US and british escort ships during an attack through a periscope. The sinking of the "Reuben James" by Lt. Topp must have been the first US casualty in a war not yet declared.

Even then a declaration of war towards the US was not really a well-thought plan. Doenitz had demanded the unrestricted U-boat war from Hitler, because his U-boat crews could not be expected to distinguish between the flags of small warships in the heat of a battle, but even he accepted the "expanded" territorial waters until war was declared, and was sure what a violation would have meant.

As far as i understand Hitler hoped to divert the US, if they engaged in a two front war, to substract forces from the european theatre later. Hitler also hoped Japan would attack Russia in land battles and also draw it into a two-front war.

I remember what my father said, how most people in Germany considered the war to be lost already in 1941, but sure as soon as Hitler declared war to the US. As well Hitler's decision to take the city of Stalingrad brought the german forces to a standstill. Would have Stalingrad been circumvented and isolated by the army (like Leningrad) things might have developed differently. However the name Stalingrad was an offensive to Hitler (or so he thought), so it had to be taken at all costs.

B.t.w. the GROEFAZ thing, with "Groesster Feldherr aller Zeiten": This turned into a cynical joke in the Wehrmacht and among the people, because it had become obvious what Hitler's kind of warfare really did to the people of Germany and the other states, it indeed was making fun of the "wise and glorious Fuehrer". It was considered a taboo word, and you were indeed accused and arrested and maybe shot if you said "Groefaz" in the public - it was not a term lickspittles used.
There was another joke like
"do you know the US have thousand ships, tenthousand tanks and millions of soldiers"
and the answer:
"Golly! if only the Fuerer knew this"
This answer to be given to all kinds of statements would as well lead to an arrest, like anything else making fun about Hitler. It was a dictatorship after all.

Greetings,
Catfish

[moscowexile]

Yes, the GRÖFAZ acronym soon become a cynical pejorative used against the Führer and, therefore, to say it aloud in certain company would have been very risky indeed. But I recall reading somewhere that when the term was first coined, Hitler loved it: he was, after all, his own biggest fan. This personality cult thing, this Führerprinzip (leader principle) that Hitler demanded and which Stalin, Mao, and Lenin also made use of, was, I suspect, used by those three latter only for political propoganda; I don't think they really believed in their public image of infallibility and greatness themselves; on the other hand, the GRÖFAZ was, I think, his own number one adulator.

The lickspittle term sprung to mind when I was writing about GRÖFAZ in a previous mailing because I was thinking of General Keitel as I wrote the expression: Keitel, I have read, used that term without cynicism and, therefore, in a lickspittlish way.

Keitel was despised by many offers in the General staff, those officers who were honourable gentlemen, professionals that followed the Prussian code, because he never criticised Hitler's decisions, earning himself the nickname: "Lackeitel", a play on his surname and the German word "Lackei", meaning "lackey" in English.

[subvers4]

Hi all,
A day off sick today, and a chance to catch up with a few things. WOW ! What an interesting, informative, and educated discussion this thread has become !
I have long held the opinion that Britain's militarial and political intervention in European affairs had a hell of a lot more to do with her own economic interests, than with any moral posturing regarding the protection of smaller/weaker countries. I still remember asking questions about the pink bits on the large map of the British Empire at school :hmm: History does tend to be written by the victorious !
Anyway, thanks for a very interesting read this morning, it really does show the calibre of members that this forum attracts
Regards Subvers4

[Wolf359]

This is Dunkerque class battleship of france navy.
2 ships of this class are built Dunkerque and Strasbourgit and both been under control of Vichy France it surly can been more useful into KM HANDS!

[PsFr]

Originally Posted by moscowexile

Indeed, the defeated Germany of 1918 was in a far stronger position than any of its "victorious" wartime adversaries: Britain was near bankrupt and eventually had to default on its war debts to the USA; France had not only been "bled white" because of the carnage that had taken place on its territory, but the major battles fought in France, having also largely taken place in the industrial regions of the French Republic, had laid those regions waste; the Russian Empire no longer existed and was being torn apart by civil war;

That's what Hitler and NSDAP was spreading after the war along some German military supporting his political ideas or very conservatives ones who could not accept the outcome of this war , but it is world widely recognized by historians today as a legend (the theory claiming they never lost the war ) , including the German historians themselves , though you've made some quality posts with lots of good points in this thread so i'd like to kindly add few things on this if you don't mind

Of course , Most European countries involved in the Great War were heavily debted , and in the case of France , the northern region of France had been partly destroyed , villages burnt , lot of deaths ( killed , diseases , lack of food etc ) , lot of rapes (esp in Belgium and northern France ) etc... however the industry was still perfectly functionnal for the simple reason that it's the one who could handle the war effort (planes , light tanks , engines , rifles , canons , ammos etc..) for France , Canadians and US pilots etc.. during 4 years and was not located in the north of France (only a small part , north of France was mostly mines/coal region )

But from a military perspective , and there is a couple of books written about it (best and most famous being the one of J.P Jardin ) , Imperial German army was completely on its knees in 1918 , after repeated failed (desperate for some ) offensives prior to March 1918 that cost a lot of lives .. not only physically , but the moral of its front troops was Extremely low (lower than Allies by very Far ) and the front lines were deeply affected , the defeat was inevitable at that point for many German officers , the French wanted to continue the offensive and invade Germany in 1918 which was refused categorically by Britain who wanted a Germany strong enough to rival France in the future but not strong enough to be a threat to Britain (this has always been an important aspect of British policy since 18th century ) and also because the British had no direct interest in doing that , they also had lost many men and money in this war and were contempt with an armistice where Germany would be disarmed , weakened economically (in order to not dominate Britain ) and reshaped politically

In this war , Germany had also suffered a lot casualties ,( about 8 millions victims and deaths like Russia , France more than 6.5 millions , Austria-Hungary a bit more than 4 millions , Britain about 3 millions etc..) and was in very bad shape in 1918 , the Allies in 1918 were on streak victories ( Second Battle of the Somme named "blackest day" by Ludendorff in Spring 1918 by British/Australians/Canadians , then France's Army after the victory at second Battle of La Marne in Summer 1918 , then the offensive in Picardie made by the Allies in general including US troops left the Germans retreating in August , the September offensive being the most effective with Germans lines completely collapsing and going back to defend German borders , the morale of Allies was higher , the industry was producing more and more materials etc.. , the exhaustion of the population was compensated by the signs of victory and Germans retreating which gave a lot of energy and determination to the people to work harder , support their suffering and believe .

for example at the same period , France's democratic republic vote in October a law for budget (Borrow for Victory /Emprunt de la victoire ) , the country was ready to fight for at least 1 more year , but then that revolution in the German Empire that started the 3 november 1918 which culminated the 9th November at Berlin and lead to the abdication of Kaiser Wilhelm II, this changed the situation in the eyes of the Allies as Imperial Germany was no more and its aggressive leader no more a threat , thus armistice was signed the 11th of November 1918 to the relief of European civilians , in the case of France people were relieved but the Military were definitely not satisfied as leaving the German territory untouched and suddenly stopping the war at the border after all the destructions , deaths , rapes and mayhem caused by German troops in France for 4 years was a major mistake to make and difficult to accept , especially since they had the definite upper hand (first time of the war one side had such a big advantage on another ) and felt the job had to be finished until Berlin , and history proved them right in 1940 (and hence why the controversial articles Treaty of Versailles in 1919 should be looked upon through this scope , the German people suffered no direct consequences on their territory after invading , killing millions of people etc. ) as if Germany would have been invaded we can speculate that WWII could not have happened

At the time a couple of German military officers do not want to accept the obvious reality of defeat until the army and country is completely destroyed and Germany invaded which is understandable but something that would have 100% surely happened had the Allies continued the war , the NSDAP is going to use that argument in the 20's claiming they never lost that war as Germany wasn't invaded and conqueered , which is a "mistake" the Soviet Union and Western Allies did not do in 1945 (and it costed lots of German civilians lives sadly ) as they had the good "lesson" of 1918 when Allies stopped fighting at the German border .

NSDAP will use this theory against Weimar Republic and democratic parties in the 20's to disqualify the new Republic , telling them that the revolution , the civilian (society) and Weimar are responsible of the defeat and betrayed the troops , that the German democratic government had been born in the defeat , labelling people supporting a democratic Germany "traitors" to the country , for them social-democracy was doomed and born in failure and only national-socialism could restore their pride (they were somewhat right since a military dictature and totalitarian regime devoting all of its material and human ressources to waging war is always going to be stronger militarily or more suited in times of war than a democracy , a war that happened later on) , NSDAP blamed the civilians and democrats (Jews too ) for causing the defeat , for them , German army could still fight on and win the war and it's because of the civilians looking for "compromises" that Imperial Germany was defeated , but today it is proven wrong completely by historians and no longer credible at all with the archives and books about the subject , it was a good theory to promote his political project though , very effective as at the time , as no one could verify that and most Germans believed him later on .

It's correct to say though that the industrial heart of Germany and territorial integrity was left untouched thanks the fact that the Allies decided stop at the German borders for political and economical reason , so Germany was in relatively better shape than some of his former ennemies to get over the losses and disasters that has been WWI and bounce again in the future , as even after WWI , German population is still 20 millions of people more than France and still retained a formidable industry and more human ressources after the armistice of 1918 and never paid the so-called unfair debts of Versailles treaty afterwards . I apologize for my English mistakes

To answer briefly the topic , it's cause many ships were scuttled , some others were used to join the British , some others were destroyed at Mers-el -Kebir , then many stayed loyal to the hierarchy , and the main reason was because it would have took lot of money and time to train and form sailors on new equipment or reequip the ships with German materials etc.. and also because KM was not in position to do anything in the Med with surfaced ships and prior to late 1941 and 1942 , KM based its strategy on U-Boats (Bismarck sunk in 41 etc..)

[predavolk]

I've argued here, and elsewhere, that Germany could've done much the same thing (i.e., close the Med) had they simply taken out Gibraltar. Base a massive air group there, and you've effectively closed off the Med. Airfleet vs. surface fleet = lots of sunken boats. The three problems were:

1- Spain were being recalcitrant about the idea. Hitler should've said "You owe me. Pay up or I'll make you pay."

2- BUT, the bigger problem is that, as others have said, Hitler never really saw, or wanted to see, the Britain for the threat it was- a link to Canada and the US, who along with Britain, would eventually come busting through his Western flank.

3- The BIGGEST problem was trying to tackle Russia without a complete understanding of the magnitude of said task.

#1 would've helped tremendously, but only if #2 and 3 were also addressed at some level of thinking.