Allied ≠ Russians?

World War II General WWII Discussion
#101

The British conduct around that time of WWII was also poor at best as they were ejected form France along with the Third Republic…

So were the Poles conquered in only six weeks; a small country, but one that had a million man army and whose quick capitulation shocked both the Allies…

So were the Soviets in the opening days of Barbarossa, who were ultimately saved by time and space (something the French, being in a small country that was ideal terrain for tanks, didn’t have) and the residual knowledge of “Deep Battle” despite Stalin’s best efforts to eradicate it from his Army --and the T-34…

It’s pretty easy to judge the French in WWII with the benefit of hindsight, but the funny thing is that everyone whose seems to do it lives in a nation that doesn’t share a land border with Germany circa 1940…

#102

Switzerland made it… :wink:

I always thought it was interesting that, until '42/'43, Germany still counted on getting the war over quickly, and had relatively little focus on research, with many scientists and mathematicians fighting at the front and driving trucks…

If Hitler would have realized the need for superior constant technological superiority early on, would it have weakened the power of the Blitzkrieg through a (minor) lack of manpower, or would it have solely further empowered the Army?

Imagine Panthers in time for Moscow, StG44s in time for Stalingrad, Me 262s in time to turn around the Battle of Britain…

#103

Hitler’s Germany still never had the natural resources to follow through which was the essential problem. Even the War with France and Britain was a big gamble as he was getting most of his materials from the Bolsheviks. The Allies felt that they were in a very good strategic position and were planning an offensive for around 1941 once France had built up its air force and armored forces…

#104

Really? Most of the materials?
Do you have some numbers on that?

#105

I’m not presuming to speak for Uyraell, but down at this end of the planet the attitude to France was affected most adversely by French atomic testing in the Pacific a few decades ago and particularly by France’s bombing of the Greenpeace ship Rainbow Warrior in New Zealand and the absence of any real punishment for the French agents who carried it out and murdered a crewman.

Most people in Australia and New Zealand were dismayed and disgusted by France’s arrogant approach to the atomic testing issue and to opponents of it, including Greenpeace. And the vast bulk of us weren’t even supporters of Greenpeace.

There was certainly a feeling here that we had lost the flower of a generation in WWI fighting for France, albeit as British forces and in pursuit of British interests, and made a significant contribution to liberating France in WWII, and our reward was to have France shit on us by testing nukes in our backyard instead of the Mediterranean, and then bombing a ship in a harbour of a country which had made a huge sacrifice in WWI to preserve France.

The French can’t begin to imagine the hostility that these arrogant actions caused, because they were too bloody busy trampling over everyone in the Pacific to test their nukes.

There was a widespread opposition to things French here after that. As an example, in the mid-1980s my wife bought some crockery after being assured by the shop assistant that it wasn’t French. When she got home and unpacked it she found it was French. She took it back to the store and got her money back.

There is still a lingering bitterness among those of us who remember the gross injustice of the French bombers of the Rainbow Warrior avoiding the life sentences for murder that they deserved.

The World Today - Rainbow Warrior bombing resurfaces amid French election campaign

The World Today - Monday, 2 October , 2006 12:42:00
Reporter: Peter Lewis

ELEANOR HALL: In New Zealand controversy over the sinking of the Greenpeace ship, the Rainbow Warrior, 21 years ago has resurfaced.

On the weekend, the French media identified the secret agent most likely to have been responsible for planting the bomb which killed one person.

And it turns out he’s the brother of a prominent Socialist Party politician who is given a good chance of becoming the next French President.

New Zealand Correspondent Peter Lewis reports.

PETER LEWIS: For Greenpeace and a lot of New Zealanders, the Rainbow Warrior bombing still provokes strong feelings.

Bunny McDiarmid was a crewman aboard the campaign vessel at the time it was sunk in July 1985. Now she’s the organisation’s Executive Director.

BUNNY MCDIARMID: All those who have been involved in this have literally got away with murder. It would seem that there’s some terrorism that’s okay, and some that isn’t.

PETER LEWIS: Two French secret agents, Dominique Prieur and Alain Mafart, pleaded guilty to the manslaughter of Greenpeace photographer, Fernando Pereira, who was killed in the blast.

They served part of their sentences on a Pacific Atoll before being repatriated to France to virtually a hero’s welcome.

But they were not working alone. Indeed, the identity of the actual Rainbow Warrior bomber has been a closely held secret for the past 20 years.

French newspapers now say it’s probably another agent, Gerard Royal, brother of French Presidential hopeful Segolene Royal.

As Paris-based New Zealand journalist, Ian Borthwick, explains that even that high-level link hasn’t aroused much interest about the issue back in France.

IAN BORTHWICK: In the beginning it was just a feeling sort of harmless article in Le Parisien newspaper with one of Segolene Royal’s brothers, who was talking about what it was like growing up in the Royal household.

And Segolene Royal actually has… I think she was in a family of eight children. And one brother was just giving some of the family details about one of the other brothers.

PETER LEWIS: And he doubts the connection with the Rainbow Warrior case will harm Madame Royal’s chances in the run-up to the presidential poll.

IAN BORTHWICK: Well, I think the significant thing is that it’s come out of the Royal camp itself. And I think in many ways it’s probably… I mean these things don’t happen by accident, and it’s probably the Royal family or Segolene Royal herself knowing that there’s a future problem possibly with this.

Although it was out there, it was a matter of public record. It had already been out in one of the magazines several months ago.

But I think it was just a matter of getting it out in the open now so that the Opposition can’t use it against her at a later stage in the countdown to the Presidential election.

She certainly looks like she will take the Socialist candidature for running for President and… but I don’t think it would be a major issue as we go down towards the elections next year.

PETER LEWIS: As for the political fallout here, well, it’s been low-key too. Under the terms of a 1991 deal with France, New Zealand agreed to a permanent stay of proceedings against all those involved in the attack in return for guaranteed access to the EU for meat and dairy exports.

A spokeswoman for the Prime Minister says the Government has no intention of pursuing the matter further.

The head of the police investigation at the time, Alan Galbraith can’t recall a Gerard Royal being among the agents suspected of involvement in the bombing.

But he says there’s little or no prospect of an arrest or an extradition, so New Zealanders should put the matter behind them.

ALAN GALBRAITH: I think probably that it’s well behind us now. There’s nothing in it for New Zealand. It’s water under the bridge, as satisfying as it would be for those of us who were involved in the initial investigation.

PETER LEWIS: Greenpeace says it appears political expediency means justice will
never be done in this case.

BUNNY MCDIARMID: The deal that was cut between the French Government and the New Zealand Government means that even if you stand in the middle of a square in Paris and yell at the top of your lungs that you were involved with the bombing of the Warrior, there doesn’t seem to be any legal proceedings in this country that will actually see you brought to justice for it.

The French Government has clearly demonstrated that it’s prepared to go to extreme lengths to protect and look after its agents that were involved in this, so I think it’s very unlikely that any sort of justice in this case will be seen to be done.

ELEANOR HALL: That’s Bunny McDiarmid of Greenpeace ending that report from Peter Lewis in Auckland.

http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2006/s1753687.htm

#106

I was under the impression that allies aside from France also wanted the Germans treated harshly after the 1914-18 war. The territorial losses Germany suffered to France appear to be less than what they lost to the Soviets in 1945 but this did not lead to Germany seeking revenge.

Also, if France was responsible for the 1939-45 war why would the nazis be less brutal towards them than to the Soviets/Russians whom they had defeated?

#107

Because (most) Russians were of Slavic descent and considered ‘Sub-Humans’ by the Germans. The French on the other hand were another fully European people, and even though they had been the nemesis of Germany for quite some while, they were considered to have proven themselves to be worthy of further existence.
(From Hitler’s point of view, the fact that the Soviets were communists also was further ‘evidence’ for the sub-humanity of them.)

Furthermore, Hitler wanted to create additional living space for Germans in the East, which obviously meant that the previous inhabitants of those areas had to go.

#108

As far as i know the Hitler was going to inhabit the Eastern Europe by the GErmans settlers, who should controll and managed the local slavs as a slaves.
But the question is - really was he was aimed to liquidate part of locals according so called “plan Ost”?Or it was just communist propogand?
We know for sure that a big part of Soviet “volunteres” ( i heard soemthing about million) has been sent to inner GErmany as a cheap manpower at plants and farms during the war.

#109

Though the French were not considered as sub human, they where nevertheless not considered as Aryans. The French volunteers where therefore not worthy a full SS title, the reason for the funny name, Charlemange SS, instead af full description, like Waffen SS Charlemange.

They simply placed the SS designation behind Charlemange.

#110

It’s not true freyir.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Waffen_SS_units#Waffen_SS_Brigades
The 33rd Waffen Grenadier Division of the SS Charlemagne was indeed the part of Waffen SS.

Also there wer a pretty much of non-germans( non-arians) foreign Waffen SS units
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Waffen_SS_units#Waffen_SS_Foreign_Legions

Azeri Waffen SS Volunteer Formations :mrgreen::rolleyes:
British Free Corps
Blue Division
Estonian Legion
Finnish Volunteer Battalion of the Waffen-SS
Frikorps Danmark
Indische Legion
Kaminski Brigade
Latvian Legion
SS-Sturmbrigade Dirlewanger
Tatar Legion :D:mrgreen:
SS Volunteer Grenadier Brigade Landstorm Nederland

In late 1944 the ALL sort of criminals, sadist and simply race-haters were welcomed in Waffen SS pretty much.
Like the Kaminski SS- Brigade of scums
Also many Tatars and Azeri( it makes me delight al time:)) were recruited into previously race-cleanes troops of Germany- SS.
Such a betrayal of “race principles” has come to the situation when SS has been transformed into the real instrument for crimes.
When i see such an …Aryans in the Deutsche Wochenschau, every time it makes me to laugh.

#111

I don’t have exact percentages, I’m not sure anyone does. But it is clear that the Soviet Union was a major source of grain, oil, magnesium, and rubber…of course the US and other Euro powers also conducted business with Germany. But Nazi Germany could not have prosecuted the War against Western Europe -and eventually the USSR itself- without these resources…

http://books.google.com/books?id=bK-KrMkySLsC&pg=PA181&lpg=PA181&dq=germany+raw+materials+from+soviet+union+battle+for+france&source=bl&ots=i4lZOgiL2H&sig=H2fbfY4uJ76erlRh7VQ6IAmZ4Ns

http://books.google.com/books?id=boJ-K6sX-VsC&pg=PA13&lpg=PA13&dq=germany+raw+materials+from+soviet+union+battle+for+france&source=bl&ots=4-wNDBv9KY&sig=Yexpytu0JQAxBUhUhYXqbGKo1mE#PPA13,M1

#112

Nickdfresh is right , Egorka.
Actualy the USSR was for the short time a biggest seller the ore , oil and grain to the Nazi Germany since september 1939 till the most june 1941( when the soviet-german trade agreement has been signed)
But at the same time USSR got a much of industry equipment , machinery and tehnologies, that contributed a lot to the Soviet victory LATER.
As for possibility to wage a war in Europe - the Hitler has began the war till the soviet -german cooperation. He captured the Poland befor the soviets even send them anything.
After that the Britain and France declared the war- the War in Western Europe was started, independently of Soviet contribution.
But since end 1940 the Germany has enough resources to wage a war everywhere, coz Romania( oil) , Finland( Nickel) and Sweden(ore) were at full German service:)
All they need is a grain- but that was enough in Ukraine.
So Barbarossa was just waiting of its time.:slight_smile:

#113

Bollocks, once again.

#114

Thanks for the links. I did not understand what is the second link for though.

It is true that some of the materials Germany purshassed through USSR had great value for them. Despite this fact it remains that in 1940 supplies from the USSR were only 7,6 % of the total German import, and supplies to USSR 4,5% of German export, with 6,3 and 6,6 % respectively the next year. Thus, USSR occupied the fifth place in the list of importers to Germany (following Italy, Denmark, Romania and Holland).

Fx. Soviet Oil was the most noticeable of the main goods and constituted … 10% of the German consumption.

#115

Ho short is the “short time”? :slight_smile:
Yearly statistical totals speak for themselves.

#116

No, they didn’t.

And the funny name isn’t Charlemange but Charlemagne, which refers to a rather important character in European, and German, history.

And the French were worthy of a full Waffen SS title (unfortunately in more ways than one): Waffen-Grenadier-Division der SS Charlemagne

http://www.axishistory.com/index.php?id=881

#117

Well, there’s a lot of it about at the moment. From the same source.

#118

I can’t say anything for sure, but I’m positive that he wanted to get rid of the ‘Slavic-Element’ at one point or another. He might have used the Slavs as workforce as long as he needed, but I’m positive that the idea was to create purely German/Aryan living space in the East, and that in order for the Germans to be safe, the Slavs would have had to be ‘removed’.

That was actually part of the Nazi-Propaganda effort, the claim that the Jews and Bolsheviks were trying to remove the German race from the face of the earth. For this, they used things like the American Jew Theodore Kaufmann’s ‘Germany must Perish!’ book, which pretty much suggested the extermination of all Germans and Austrians followed by the partition of German (and Austrian) lands into Holland, France, Denmark, Italy, Czech Republic and Belgium.
(This book was written & published by him in 1941, so it was one of the later influences in the propaganda, but they had similar, also original foreign books of the same kind beforehand. People like Kaufmann have often been condemned for their statements by the Allies later on, as they pretty much gave the Nazi Propaganda exactly what it needed to convince the Germans that they were, in fact, only defending themselves)

This is also why in one picture in the Photo section, which portrays German soldiers writing messages on their bombs, one message is ‘So we can live, you dogs have to die!’

Couple this with the (exaggerated) reports of massacres against the German population in Poland, and there was not an insignificant amount of people who believed the Propaganda and actually considered Germany’s war against Poland and Russia as well as their extermination of Jews a preemptive war…

Just watch the video link in the ‘Wehrmacht Exhibition’ thread. One of the veterans still claims that their war against Russia was a purely preemptive one, and that Russia was going to invade them if they hadn’t beaten them to it, he even goes so far as to claim that Russia provoked them by moving combat troops to the border and cites several massacres committed against ethnic Germans in Poland as legal acts of war against Germany.

#119

From my reading many, many years ago (John Toland “Hitler”, I think, and that was in 1978 that I was reading it) “Plan Ost” was basically intended as a gradualised replacement of ethnic Slavs and Asiatics by Germanics once the war against the USSR had been won by Germany.

The basic idea was that Slavs should only be permitted to breed sufficient numbers to man the various factories and industries required by the Reich for its’ expansion, after which the Slavs were to be gradually reduced of resources `til they died out by attrition.
It is of note here, that there was not at this stage planned an extermination regime as of the Jews, Gypsies, and various other ‘undesirable races’. The Slavs and certain limited numbers of Asiatics were viewed as sufficiently able to man factories and farms under German Rule for about two decades, perhaps three, after which attrition among the Slavs was expected to come into affect.

That was the basic plan. I do not now recall the full details, it has simply been too many years since I did read them.

Whether or not there would eventually have been an extermination policy regarding the Slavs and Asiatics is perhaps debatable, albeit I regard it as having been very likely as Hitler grew older and more rigidified in his outlook. I can say with some certainty that Reinhard Heydrich certainly viewed the Slavs and Asiatics as initially a necessary evil, but ultimately disposable. Heydrich is relevant to this subject by virtue of being Hitler’s Heir Apparent after the defection of Hess. Heydrich would certainly have followed-through on Hitler’s wishes regarding the Reich in the eastern territories, which is one of the reasons his assassination was sanctioned and approved by the British.

Regards, Uyraell.

#120

France as an “Ally”.

I have been some days in thought, as to how best address the points Nickdfresh and kamehouse raised, in debating an earlier post I made to this thread.

Nick, I’m sorry but I don’t see French casualties as entitlement to claims as a Victor. France was, in terms of available manpower, virtually bled dry by the time of April 1917. The British Nations were in not much better case, and could have managed holding actions at best, which would have resulted in the stalemate France was already facing. A stalemate though, is not a Victory.

You ask “Who won the war then, for France?” I answer: America, in effect.
For the reasons cited above. Without America, WW1 would emphatically NOT have been an Allied victory.

And now to kamehouse: while the individual prowess of French soldiery in WW1 was considerable, I nonetheless retain the opinion that France basically failed. It did so again, in WW2. (At no point did I say French soldiery had spent WW1 hiding behind bushes.)
However: having so said, I freely acknowledge that French politicians threw away or sadly abused the sacrifices French soldiery had made, when it came time for the Versailles Peace Treaty.
In this misuse of the results the poilous had gained, I chiefly view Foche as the main perpetrator, in as much as he basically browbeat everyone else at Versailles into letting him have his way.
Or expressed the other way: Ferdinand Foche whined and moaned til he got what he wanted. The other representatives went to great lengths to warn Foche he was demanding far too much, and that France would herself eventually come to pay a high price for his demands. Woodrow Wilson spent much effort on the above, as did David Lloyd George (who had no love for France, be assured).
So, in short: while I freely acknowledge the valour of French troops: without the USA entering WW1 said French valour would not have won that war, nor eventually would the valour of the British nations, including my own.

Now, to an aside that nonetheless is relevant to France, in particular the way France is viewed at this end of the globe.
An uncle of mine is a WW2 veteran. After France attacked and sank the Rainbow Warrior vessel in NZ waters, (an Act of War upon an Allied Nation) my uncle said the following; “Well christ, it looks like New Zealand fought on the wrong side, in 1914 and 1939.” He’s in his late 80’s nowadays, and is still extremely hurt by the outright treachery of France. Most New Zealanders share a view similar to his.
And it is easy to see why. Having been among the nations that gave France the victory in WW1, NZ is rewarded by having France try to block our access to European markets for our products. The same happens after WW2 also, and continues to this very day.
Then as further reward: France spends much of the 1960’s and 1970’s and 1980’s testing nuclear weapons in the South Pacific, thus subjecting the local populations to hazards which France would never willingly expose her own European population.
Then, France sinks the Rainbow Warrior in an NZ harbour. No-wonder France became almost hated.
Meanwhile, French arrogance continues on unabated, shitting upon each and every Ally that gave its’ blood that France might survive as a nation.
Expressing the above in another way: France has made of the blood sacrificed for her survival as a nation “La Grande Quonnerrie”.

And finally a personal view. And yes, I know this will cause upset.

France would even today be best if run from Berlin, as a German Province.
Europe would be nowhere near as fucked-up, and would be economically far more stable. As was once said in a history class at high school: “France is the Perfect German Province, the only problem is the French are too arrogant, too conceited, and too ignorant to realise that.”

France views itself, quite wrongly, as the Saviour of Europe: France is Europe’s Bane.

Regards, Uyraell.