Who started both World Wars?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Germany had two 'heels of Achilles': iron ore from Sweden and oil from Rumania and Germany's enemies knew it.


Germany had more than two critical points in its economy. There was its electrical supply, which, had it been attacked in a sustained manner, would have crippled Germany's industry as effectively as the attacks on oil and transportation did later in the war. Then there was its transportation network. And its ball bearing production. The production of certain chemicals was yet another. Engine manufacture is still another.

There are several critical choke points in any industrialized nation's economy.
 
The greatest weakness was the lunatic at the helm driving the Germans to destruction - he seems not to have realize that his announced victims might fight back
 
OK, as promised I have been reading and summarizing the latest revisionist thinking about the Norway campaign, April-1940.

Here is the summary, some 10 pages Letter/A4 excluding the pictures:

http://20thcentury-blog.blogspot.com/

The discussion point was:

Why did Germany invade Norway?

Me and Gareth opined that it was all about the iron ore. I am pleased to be able to announce that after reading the latest book about the subject that I do not have to change one jota of my original opinions. No surprises here.

My opponents initially claimed (Wroclaw and Ellard) that Germany needed a launchpad for bombing campaigns.

Wroclaw and Ellard ramble on a little bit:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7025256&postcount=4620
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7035062&postcount=4664

Nowhere in the book of Lunde the argument of bombing Britain from Norway is mentioned.

After I showed them British government documents Wroclaw backtracked:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7039413&postcount=4707

Summing up the conclusions of Lunde (which I support):

- The Allies wanted to finally start the war THEY declared.
- The Allies had too much respect for Germany to attack it directly, certainly the French, who were bordering the Germans
- only days after war broke out in Poland Churchill came up with a stupid plan to attack Germany in the Baltics (Germany had 1300 military planes)
- Next it was Churchill who came up with the iron ore supply disruption plan. His plan was to provoke the Germans into action and then he counted on the superiority of the his navy to deal with the Germans. That was the plan.
- The Germans were forced to react to the Allied plans if they wanted to avoid losing the war before it really started. Germany had two 'heels of Achilles': iron ore from Sweden and oil from Rumania and Germany's enemies knew it.
- According to Lunde it was Britain who violated Norwegian neutrality most by far.

Does anybody dare to come up with a different interpretation of events regarding Norway?

This guy agrees with you stemming from a different question of why Sweden wasn't invaded:
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Why_did_Germany_not_invade_Sweden_in_World_War_2
Northern Europe, meaning Denmark and Norway, were invaded for important strategic reasons, one of which was that Scandinavia supplied iron ore. This raw material was obviously critical for the success of any modern war effort. The allies (Churchill) had as an objective to stop the flow of iron ore (and basically antyhing else for that matter,) to Germany from everywhere possible, including Scandinavia, as well as to get as many European nations involved in the war one way or the other, and on their side, as possible. England then breached Norwegian neutrality by mining some of its waterways and when Germany reacted, Britain launched its own atempted occupation of Norway, which led to the actual German invasion. Germany invaded through Denmark whilst England entered Norway from the north. Germany won this theatre, the British had to evacuate, and thereby Germany secured its flow of iron ore as well as cut off the Baltic Sea from the British navy, securing shipping routes from Scandinavia (Norway, Denmark, Sweden & Finland) to various European ports. Thus Germany had achieved its objective by holding only Norway and Denmark. If a world atlas is studied it can be seen that holding Sweden and Finland as well was not necessary.

There maybe other critical points, but disrupting the ore supply was the plan:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plan_R_4
 
Germany won this theatre, the British had to evacuate, and thereby Germany secured its flow of iron ore as well as cut off the Baltic Sea from the British navy, securing shipping routes from Scandinavia (Norway, Denmark, Sweden & Finland) to various European ports.


Secure perhaps from British naval interference, but not secure from interference from the air. Coastal Command would create an anti-shipping strike force which went after German shipping in those regions. Indeed, in just two years of operations, Coastal Command's anti-shipping strike wings sank some 300,000 tons of German shipping (about 7% of the total lost by Germany from all causes in Northern Europe). And these figures were achieved in spite of vastly lower resources being devoted to Coastal Command as compared to Bomber Command.

Gardening operations by Bomber Command sank some 717 ships and significantly impacting the training of U-boat crews in the Baltic.
 
Why not spell out the recently released original British government documents about their intentions regarding Norway:

http://i1184.photobucket.com/albums/z339/Gerard1945/GERARD45-1.jpg
Jan 2, 1940
The Chiefs of Staff recommend stopping the flow of iron ore to Germany which is seen as decisive in winning the war. The British clearly intend in making Scandinavia the theater of war while keeping that war from their own turf. Nice people, these Allies.


http://i55.tinypic.com/20ubcyh.jpg
Feb 2, 1940-a
Proof that British and French were preparing for invasion in Scandinavia and cutting iron ore supply under the pretext of 'helping the Finns'.

Feb 2, 1940-b
http://i52.tinypic.com/2qnmkuc.jpg
What a revelation: "the French General Gamelin no longer was convinced that the Germans would attack this year (1940)". Boohoo, what a pity. We declared war on them and they do noting in return! Can't have that of course, after all Germany needs to be destroyed because the outcompete us on global markets. So what is a law-abiding, tax-paying British/French war monger to do to provoke Germany into war without them ransacking our turf? Because we British/French are indeed a little bit afraid of the Germans. You know what: let's use somebody else's country to attack Germany! Why not Norway!? Read the last 10 lines. It is all about provoking Germany into war. It becomes all too obvious that the Germans did not want war at all with Britain and France and that they had to forced to defend themselves.


http://i1184.photobucket.com/albums/z339/Gerard1945/400219.jpg
Feb 19, 1940
Clear proof that Churchill was anxious to mine Norwegian territorial waters now that the Winterwar unexpectedly came to an end and the original plan of invading Scandinavia under the pretext of 'helping the Finns' had become obsolete.


Note that the Allies did not anticipate a German invasion of Norway without them being provoked to do so. In other words, the Allies were the warmongers, not the Germans, who merely wanted to rollback Versailles and reunite all Germans into one Germany and that was it.
 
Last edited:
The greatest weakness was the lunatic at the helm driving the Germans to destruction - he seems not to have realize that his announced victims might fight back

Yes, one ought not to underestimate the aid the Bohemian Corporal gave to the Allies in the form of his ignorance on the art and science of war.
 
On a more serious point, the main issue for the Germans was the ore supply. The plain fact was that it would be much easier for the allies to interrupt that supply by diplomatic means alone. Or rather, the only way for Germany to absolutely guarantee the supply of iron ore was to invade. The invasion became inevitable after the Altmark incident demonstrated that Norway would not, or could not, defend its neutrality.

Gareth of course is lying through his teeth and he knows it. He pretends that the Altmark incident (feb 16, 1940) was the initiating event that lead to the German invasion of Norway (and leaving out that the British and French were invading Norway at exactly the same day, an undertaking the necessarily had been prepared for much earlier). Now we know this from Lunde:

Merely 3 days after the German invasion of Poland, when Churchill was was appointed First Lord of the Admiralty again, he presented a draft plan of undertaking action against Germany in Northern Europe (Operation Catherine). Churchill wanted to enter the Baltic with a fleet and attack the German fleet and halt the iron supply from Sweden. It was an adventurous plan considering that the Germans had 1300 airplanes at their disposal to deal with such a fleet. Churchill hardly had a grasp of the effect of air power in modern warfare as would become painfully clear 7 months later. The British Navy unlikely supported this plan. Next Churchill turned his attention to the Norwegian west coast in order to hinder German merchant naval traffic and presented his plans on a Cabinet meeting of September 19, 1939; a more detailed plan followed 10 days later.

In other words Churchill was already plotting for hostile action in Norway at least as early as September 19, 1939.

There was a German concern over a possible allied expeditionary force landing in Norway to support the Finns in the winter war. Such a force would also disrupt Germany's ore supply. Though the allied plan never got past the discussion phase, the press at the time represented such an intervention as a real possibility. By March 12, of course, this possibility had evaporated.

No problem. After that (for the Allies) unfortunate event of peace between Finland and the USSR, the mining of the Norwegian coast was on the table again.

Incidentally, as early as October 10 1939, Admiral Raeder had suggested to the Fuhrer that capturing Norwegian ports, especially Trondheim and Narvik, would be useful to the Kriegsmarine and would enable it to broaden the scope of its operations against the Royal Navy.

It is possible that he said that. But if he did he did that after the Allies had declared war on Germany. That changed the game entirely of course. Raeder did what every admiral should do in case of his country being at war, namely discussing strategic options. But Hitler, meaning the political leader, was not convinced. He preferred a neutral Scandinavia and as long as the Allies undertook no action he preferred not to rock the boat. Hitler changed his mind after the Germans were able to eavesdrop on the Allies, which clearly showed that they were preparing for an invasion of Norway. Then he had to act. And he did.
 
In other words, the Allies were the warmongers, not the Germans, who merely wanted to rollback Versailles and reunite all Germans into one Germany and that was it.

ah, so that's why the Germans and the Russians abolished Poland and divided it amoung themselves. to simply reunite the German people..and thats it.

nice lie.
 
ah, so that's why the Germans and the Russians abolished Poland and divided it amoung themselves. to simply reunite the German people..and thats it.

I guess our Nazi forgot about this too.

The Czech part of Czechoslovakia was subsequently invaded by Germany in March 1939, with a portion being annexed and the remainder turned into the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia. Slovak part declared its independence from Czechoslovakia, becoming the Slovak Republic (Slovak State), a satellite state and ally of Nazi Germany.

Now how many of these Czechs were secretly Germans yearning to be under the '12 year' Reich?

Ah the Nazi is still on his little Hitler didn't start the war thing I see. Some people are impervious to reality

The OP is based on SERIOUS denial because if it can be proved that Hitler was really a nice guy all the dark skinned people in the Netherlands will go home...................
 
Last edited:
And that Britain started bombing Germany on the very day that Churchill came to power on top of that.


I decided to take a closer look at my reference books since I suspected what our intrepid 9/11-investigator was saying, at the very least, was lacking in proper context, if not flat-out wrong.

It turns out to be wrong.

The restrictions in place were against attacking the interior of Germany—its ports and the areas around them were subject to attack, as were its naval vessels. The first major daylight raid against German naval ships was mounted on Dec. 3, 1939, when two cruisers, eight merchant ships, and a number of smaller vessels were attacked. A second raid was launched on Dec. 14 against a battleship and cruiser in the mouth of the Elbe. Four days a patrol found a number of warships at Wilhelmshaven, but as the ships were close to shore and there was the risk of civilian casualties, no bombs were dropped.

The damage caused by such early bombing raids were minimal and often suffered serious casualties, so a change in strategy was considered. On Feb. 22, 1940, it was made official: Bomber Command was to switch to nighttime attacks and would focus primarily on attacking oil refineries. In early April the War Cabinet took up the issue of loosening the restrictions on attacking the interior of Germany, but they were left in place.

When Churchill became Prime Minister he gave his support to removing the restrictions: "We should not allow our heavy bomber force to be frittered away and thus deprive ourselves of its principal deterrent effect, and of the ability to deliver its heavy blow."

Approval finally came on May 15, and Bomber Command was authorized to strike at oil refineries and railway centres east of the Rhine river. The first raid was carried out that same night—nearly a hundred bombers went sent to sixteen different targets in the Ruhr area. Damage and casualties, however, were minimal: one person killed in Cologne and two injured in Münster. Two nights later 78 bombers made for Hamburg, Bremen, and Cologne; a total of 47 people were killed. German records indicate that in attacks on targets in the Ruhr some 70% of British bombs fell on open countryside.

Between June 19 and Oct. 13 six different directives were issued to Bomber Command setting out the force's objectives and methods of attack. The directive issued on July 13, for example, set out that the main effort was to be directed against ten aircraft factories and five oil plants.

The move to general, or area, bombing only happened after German bombers (mistakenly) dropped bombs on central London on the night of Aug. 24/25, 1940. A retaliatory raid on Berlin was conducted the next night by the RAF. Damage, however, occurred mostly in the farmland south of the city. In Berlin itself damage consisted of one summer home destroyed and two people injured. The day after that the Luftwaffe bombed London, deliberately this time. Bomber Command, instead of targetting Berlin, put its emphasis on attacking industrial targets in Leipzig—the reluctance to engage in wholesale area bombing still persisted. With the German raids on Coventry, Bristol, and Southampton in November of 1940, the resistance to deliberate area bombing was at last removed.

The first true area bombing raid by the RAF, intended as a deliberate reprisal for the German raids, was conducted on the night of Dec. 16/17, 1940, against the city of Mannheim. 134 aircraft were dispatched to bomb the city centre, using incendiaries to open the assault with follow-up aircraft to aim at the fires started.

And yet, even after this, bombing objectives switched back to specific targets. On Jan. 15, 1941, a directive was issued that oil production was to be the primary target of Bomber Command. Raids against industrial facilities, ports, and naval targets also occurred. (This despite the fact that the ability to actually hit and damage such targets was very limited. Of the RAF bombs dropped in raids in May of 1941, for example, over half fell in the countryside, well away from any cities, towns, and villages.)

It was the realization that little damage was being done to specific targets which pushed the emphasis back to area bombing. As the Butt Report of August of 1941 made abundantly clear, the bombing specific installations had been a dismal failure. The way had been cleared for area bombing to become the primary focus of Bomber Command's efforts. The rationale was simple: if bombs are to be dropped, then one should drop them in a manner which at least does some damage to the enemy. And that means attacking the built-up areas of a city, which is the only thing that at night could be found and hit with any prospect of success.
 
Last edited:
The German airforce in contrary to the RAF and USAF was not designed for strategic bombing missions. It makes no sense to blame one side for having dropped the first explosives. Plannings for strategic bomber fleets go back to the 20's and 30's and the Germans had no intentions to have strategic bombers.
In their doctrine all forces operated in combined mission and where highly mobile. 4-engine-planes make no sense in that strategy.
The pointing at "Who did it first" is useless. There is no more need for deception, for defense of the post WWII black and white dogma.

BTW: The RAF bombed German cities long before December 1940

double-u, double-u,double-u nzetc.org/tm/scholarly/tei-WH2-2Epi-c6-WH2-2Epi-b.html
 
some quotes

Between 1940 and 1945, sixty-one German cities with a total population of 25 millions were destroyed or devastated in a bombing campaign initiated by the British government. Destruction on this scale had no other purpose than the indiscriminate mass murder of as many German people as possible quite regardless of their civilian status. It led to retaliatory bombing resulting in 60,000 British dead and 86,000 injured. The British and the USA also bombed France, resulting in 60,000 civilian dead.

Hidden from the public

'It is one of the greatest triumphs of modern emotional engineering that, in spite of the plain facts of the case which could never be disguised or even materially distorted, the British public, throughout the Blitz Period (1940-1941), remained convinced that the entire responsibility for their sufferings rested on the German leaders.' Advance to Barbarism, F.J.P. Veale.


'It may be Inconvenient History but England rather than Germany initiated the murderous slaughter of bombing civilians thus bringing about retaliation. Chamberlain conceded that it was "absolutely contrary to International law." It began in 1940 and Churchill believed it held the secret of victory. He was convinced that raids of sufficient intensity could destroy Germany's morale, and so his War Cabinet planned a campaign that abandoned the accepted practice of attacking the enemy's armed forces and, instead made civilians the primary target. Night after night, RAF bombers in ever increasing numbers struck throughout Germany, usually at working class housing, because it was more densely packed.' The Peoples' War, Angus Calder. London, Jonathan Cape, 1969.*


Hitler forced to retaliate

'Hitler only undertook the bombing of British civilian targets reluctantly three months after the RAF had commenced bombing German civilian targets. Hitler would have been willing at any time to stop the slaughter. Hitler was genuinely anxious to reach with Britain an agreement confining the action of aircraft to battle zones... Retaliation was certain if we carried the war into Germany... there was a reasonable possibility that our capital and industrial centres would not have been attacked if we had continued to refrain from attacking those of Germany... We began to bomb objectives on the German mainland before the Germans began to bomb objectives on the British mainland... Because we were doubtful about the psychological effect of propagandist distortion of the truth that it was we who started the strategic bombing offensive, we have shrunk from giving our great decision of May 11th, 1940, the publicity it deserves.' J.M. Spaight, CB, CBE, Principal Secretary to the Air Ministry, Bombing Vindicated.


'The attack on the Ruhr was therefore an informal invitation to the Luftwaffe to bomb London. The primary purpose of these raids was to goad the Germans into undertaking reprisal raids of a similar character on Britain. Such raids would arouse intense indignation in Britain against Germany and so create a war psychosis without which it would be impossible to carry on a modern war.' The Royal Air Force, 1939-1945, The Fight at Odds, p. 122. Dennis Richards, Her Majesty's Stationery Office.
 
Between 1940 and 1945, sixty-one German cities with a total population of 25 millions were destroyed or devastated in a bombing campaign initiated by the British government. Destruction on this scale had no other purpose than the indiscriminate mass murder of as many German people as possible quite regardless of their civilian status. It led to retaliatory bombing resulting in 60,000 British dead and 86,000 injured. The British and the USA also bombed France, resulting in 60,000 civilian dead.

Hidden from the public

'It is one of the greatest triumphs of modern emotional engineering that, in spite of the plain facts of the case which could never be disguised or even materially distorted, the British public, throughout the Blitz Period (1940-1941), remained convinced that the entire responsibility for their sufferings rested on the German leaders.' Advance to Barbarism, F.J.P. Veale.


'It may be Inconvenient History but England rather than Germany initiated the murderous slaughter of bombing civilians thus bringing about retaliation. Chamberlain conceded that it was "absolutely contrary to International law." It began in 1940 and Churchill believed it held the secret of victory. He was convinced that raids of sufficient intensity could destroy Germany's morale, and so his War Cabinet planned a campaign that abandoned the accepted practice of attacking the enemy's armed forces and, instead made civilians the primary target. Night after night, RAF bombers in ever increasing numbers struck throughout Germany, usually at working class housing, because it was more densely packed.' The Peoples' War, Angus Calder. London, Jonathan Cape, 1969.*


Hitler forced to retaliate

'Hitler only undertook the bombing of British civilian targets reluctantly three months after the RAF had commenced bombing German civilian targets. Hitler would have been willing at any time to stop the slaughter. Hitler was genuinely anxious to reach with Britain an agreement confining the action of aircraft to battle zones... Retaliation was certain if we carried the war into Germany... there was a reasonable possibility that our capital and industrial centres would not have been attacked if we had continued to refrain from attacking those of Germany... We began to bomb objectives on the German mainland before the Germans began to bomb objectives on the British mainland... Because we were doubtful about the psychological effect of propagandist distortion of the truth that it was we who started the strategic bombing offensive, we have shrunk from giving our great decision of May 11th, 1940, the publicity it deserves.' J.M. Spaight, CB, CBE, Principal Secretary to the Air Ministry, Bombing Vindicated.


'The attack on the Ruhr was therefore an informal invitation to the Luftwaffe to bomb London. The primary purpose of these raids was to goad the Germans into undertaking reprisal raids of a similar character on Britain. Such raids would arouse intense indignation in Britain against Germany and so create a war psychosis without which it would be impossible to carry on a modern war.' The Royal Air Force, 1939-1945, The Fight at Odds, p. 122. Dennis Richards, Her Majesty's Stationery Office.

May 11th 1940? So no cities were bombed by the germans before this date?
Really?

I suggest You read "Enemy coast ahead". Especially the first part where Guy Gibson describes the ineffectual way the english were conducting their bombing attacks. And under what a restricted rules they were flying in the beginning.
 
Not to engage in a major derail or anything but I'd just like to wish 9/11 a merry June 6th.
 
TBTW: The RAF bombed German cities long before December 1940.


If by bombing cities you mean they tried to hit specific installations within cities, then yes. But the results of such attacks were typically minimal, and the attacking force suffered often high casualty rates. Hence the switch to nighttime bombing, which only exacerbated the problems of hitting specific installations.

Or, to put it another way, read post #4971.


Between 1940 and 1945, sixty-one German cities with a total population of 25 millions were destroyed or devastated in a bombing campaign initiated by the British government.


The vast majority of that occurred from 1944 onwards. The bombing campaign in 1940-41 was essentially a wasted effort. No significant damage had been done to any of the list of specific targets that had been selected. Most bombs, as the Butt Report and the Germans' own records make clear, were falling on open countryside or well away from the aiming points.


Destruction on this scale had no other purpose than the indiscriminate mass murder of as many German people as possible quite regardless of their civilian status.


False.

Such area bombing raids had notable, though indirect, effects on the German war economy.


'It may be Inconvenient History but England rather than Germany initiated the murderous slaughter of bombing civilians thus bringing about retaliation. Chamberlain conceded that it was "absolutely contrary to International law." It began in 1940 and Churchill believed it held the secret of victory. He was convinced that raids of sufficient intensity could destroy Germany's morale, and so his War Cabinet planned a campaign that abandoned the accepted practice of attacking the enemy's armed forces and, instead made civilians the primary target.


False. The actual history of the bombing offensive is considerably more complicated. See post #4971 for starters.


Hitler only undertook the bombing of British civilian targets reluctantly three months after the RAF had commenced bombing German civilian targets.


False. See post #4971.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom