Britain, 1939 -1940 And Its Alliances

[Sparviero]

You are right that I could have had the Germans trying to stop Mussolini, although they wouldn't necessarily have succeeded; Mussolini was very proud and didn't want to be seen to be remaining on the sidelines while Germany was succeeding. 

 

When faced with a subject as huge and diverse as WW2, it is necessary to be highly selective about what is covered. Other authors would certainly have made different choices, and are welcome to do so!

 

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion

forum

145223[/snapback]

 

I believe you chose the wrong word given how your book plays out, given your book I believe it should read more like: Mussolini was very stupid and didn't want to be seen to be remaining on the sidelines while Germany was succeeding. and you handily ignore the fact that he was not a true dictator in the sense that he controlled all power. The king, industrialists and generals would have balked at such action if one was to make a serious go of it. In your book the Germans are not succeeding as in our time and you've made the two main countries become leaps and bound ahead of the rest of the world in technology and have Italy make no alteration whatsoever in how she reacts. Given the way the sequences were written in regards to Italy it is rather clear why you did such, as I stated above, no matter how you wish to sugar coat it. I am just saying it would have been better to ignore them than to feed into 60 year old Albion propaganda that feeds on belittling the Italians as much as possible. It gets rather tiring reading such things over and over again.

 

As I've said before this is just my opinion and I'm sure your main audience ate it up and will demand more of the same.

[Colin Williams]

I've been reading in this area lately, and although I still have more ground to cover I have to say the British government, particularly Neville Chamberlain, bears most of the responsibility (say 60-75%) for the appeasement and failed diplomacy that led to war and the fall of France.

 

There were a number of occasions after the remilitarization of the Rhineland when the French were at least willing, if not enthusiastic, to take a stronger line against Hitler. Unfortunately, in every case the British failed to back them up. Even worse, many of Chamberlain's diplomatic initiatives, including his trip to Germany during the Czech crisis, were launched without either consulting with or informing the French in advance.

[UN-Interested Observer]

and lets not forget that he can still deal with the Jew question... and kill of all the European Jews. Knowing what would happen, do you really think the UK would do nothing to stop this?

145267[/snapback]

 

Well, Hitler shamed most of the Allies into silence when they protested about unfair treatment of Jews earlier - he sent boatloads to each country, and each government promptly shut up rather than take the exiled emmigrants in. Though it was clear from abundant intelligence and aerial photography where the camps were, what they did, and how - no action was ever taken against them. No bombing missions were ever flown to destroy the ovens, infrastructure, or even just blast holes in razor-wire fences. The entire horrible operation could have been derailed for little expenditure, but we all know it wasn't. It wasn't even condemned publicly, for god's sake, until it was all over.

 

 

KingSargent: "Even if they did have some, "moving into Norway" means invading a neutral nation. This is not a good idea, it makes people think you are as bad as Germany."

 

Ironically one of the humorous coincidences of the war was that German and Britain both decided to violate Norwegian neutrality on the same day! Granted the British would have done it earlier, but you know how things can get delayed...

 

 

Colin Williams:"...the British government, particularly Neville Chamberlain, bears most of the responsibility (say 60-75%) for the appeasement and failed diplomacy that led to war and the fall of France."

 

I feel that in a democracy, with free press and open debate, the people are responsible for government actions. This rings especially true when crowds gather to cheer Chamberlain on his return from Munich. If Chamberlain had been met by thousands of protesting hippies, held back by riot police and CS gas, complaining about media censorship and occlusive and pernicious goverment policy-making - then I would agree with you.

[Colin Williams]

Colin Williams:"...the British government, particularly Neville Chamberlain, bears most of the responsibility (say 60-75%) for the appeasement and failed diplomacy that led to war and the fall of France."

 

I feel that in a democracy, with free press and open debate, the people are responsible for government actions. This rings especially true when crowds gather to cheer Chamberlain on his return from Munich. If Chamberlain had been met by thousands of protesting hippies, held back by riot police and CS gas, complaining about media censorship and occlusive and pernicious goverment policy-making - then I would agree with you.

145450[/snapback]

 

Only to a degree and in the longer (i.e., many months to a few years) term. The responsibility for a public figure in a democracy is both to obey public opinion as expressed through the polls and to try to lead public opinion when necessary. This is particularly true in the case of foreign/defense issues, but one can see this throughout history (e.g., Thomas Paine's "Common Sense" changed many opinions). In the case of Neville Chamberlain and the British government, your characterization is partly valid for the early days of appeasement, but it is also true that the government did its best to sell appeasement to the people and avoid casting German activities in a threatening light (hence the leaking of top secret info to Churchill by some in the military). In the end, your view of the role of the public in democracies may have worked in reverse, for Chamberlain himself the decision to go to war was motivated to a great estent by the desire to stay in power, as public and political opinion had changed dramatically.

[Tony Williams]

I believe you chose the wrong word given how your book plays out, given your book I believe it should read more like: Mussolini was very stupid and didn't want to be seen to be remaining on the sidelines while Germany was succeeding. and you handily ignore the fact that he was not a true dictator in the sense that he controlled all power. The king, industrialists and generals would have balked at such action if one was to make a serious go of it. In your book the Germans are not succeeding as in our time and you've made the two main countries become leaps and bound ahead of the rest of the world in technology and have Italy make no alteration whatsoever in how she reacts. Given the way the sequences were written in regards to Italy it is rather clear why you did such, as I stated above, no matter how you wish to sugar coat it. I am just saying it would have been better to ignore them than to feed into 60 year old Albion propaganda that feeds on belittling the Italians as much as possible. It gets rather tiring reading such things over and over again.

 

As I've said before this is just my opinion and I'm sure your main audience ate it up and will demand more of the same.

 

It was not my intention to belittle the Italians. It is a fact that while some Italian units fought extremely well (their elite troops in particular - those frogmen did huge damage to the British battleships), most performed poorly, partly because of lack of motivation and partly because most of their equipment was poor by comparison with the British. It is an historical fact that General O'Connor swept through the Italian forces in North Africa in 1940 with great ease.

 

In 'The Foresight War', the British are far better prepared and equipped than they historically were, so to portray their victory in North Africa as quick and comprehensive is IMO no more than realistic in the circumstances. The Italians do not improve their own equipment or tactics (neither do the Americans, the Russians or the Japanese) because, unlike the British and the Germans, they do not have the benefit of any advice from the future - so how could they?

 

You could of course write a similar book on the basis of the Italians having such foreknowledge. If I had the power to influence Mussolini, I would tell him to maintain friendly relations and trade with Hitler (in the interests of survival) but to avoid any pacts with him and to stay out of the war at all costs.

 

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion

forum

[richard g]

The morality issue may be plain to see now but that does not appear to be so at the time at all. Even if it was plain to see then, its a huge responsibility to commit a country to all out war, particularly in the situation GB was faced with. After all a countries first responsibility is to its own people, we can talk about morality but not many democracies would or do today go to even a limited war on the basis of morality alone. Africa anyone?

 

Considering the world situation at the time there is some considerable support for the view that Nazi Germany was not the greatest threat, so soon we forget the threat posed by Stalin and communism.

 

They were turbulent and difficult times in which to make high level decisions, actually I have this image of an impetuous Churchill rushing towards war without too much consideration, a cigar in one hand some refreshment in the other History rightly judges that his decision that time was the correct one, as we know some of his other decisions have not stood the same test of time.

[swerve]

Richard has a point: Nazi anti-semitism was not viewed in the same light then as now (remember that both Britain & the USA were unwilling to accept many German Jews, & open anti-semitism played a part in that refusal. Poland refused to accept back from Germany Polish-born Jews in the 1930s - and that was the country the UK went to war to help!), & nobody thought extermination would become Nazi policy. After all, if you want to exterminate Jews, why try so hard to expel them? It wasn't Nazi policy before the war. When the Allies were told of the death camps, they were reluctant to believe the full story. It took eye-witness testimony by credible witnesses to convince them, & took months.

 

Beware hindsight.

[DougRichards]

As an extendion of the MeK thread:

 

France did nothing, when it had the chance, to prevent Germany from remilitarising the Rhineland in 1936.

 

Then , then after the declaration of war by France and Britain in Sepember 1939, followed with no more action by the European partner of the Franco-Britain alliance until Germany took the initiative in May 1940.

 

Should Britain have seen the inevitable and withdrawn from the alliance in January or February 1940 and left France and Germany to fight it out?

 

This would have left Britain in a much stronger military position, and except for Churchill, would have been in a better position to reach an agreement to leave Europe to Germany?  The result would have been that the European Union would simply have come about twenty or thirty years sooner.  Nazism may have eventually fallen over in the same way that Comunism did in the early 1990s?

 

Did Britain lose more than it had a hope to gain by supporting France? 

 

Along the same vein:

 

Did think that Britain expect the French Empire to act in the same way that the British Empire would have acted, that is, that if Britain had fallen, then the British Empire would have continued to fight as best as it could?

 

Or was the French Empire tied too closely to Metropolitan France for its own good?

 

Weren't the French Fleet and other colonial assets meant to continue the war with a view to the eventual liberation of France?

144861[/snapback]

 

By the way, I think that Britain did the right thing in fighting alongside France in 1939-1940. I think, in hindsight, that neither army fought as smart as they could have, and they should not have just let the Germans come to them.

 

But it is also too easy to see things simply, an example of the nature of European politics 1939-1940 can be seen in the ordering, by the RAF, of a batch of Reggiane Re.2000 fighters (themselves copies of Republic P-35 Lancers) in JANUARY 1940. What is more astonishing is that Germany approved the deal. In January 1940 it was clear that Hitler considered that peace with Britain was achievable. None of the aircraft got delivered to Britain, by the way, but Hungary got 70 of them.

 

 

And if you thought that Britains attempted destruction of the French naval forces at MeK was bizarre, the British had a plan to bomb Soviet oilfields at Baku in 1941, after Barbarossa had commenced, to stop Russian oil getting into German fuel tanks.

 

see

 

http://www.thehistorynet.com/mhq/bloperationunthinkable/

 

This was after an earlier British plan to bomb Soviet oil fields whilst the Soviet Union was still 'neutral' (Operation Pike)

[DougRichards]

Sorry Doug, but this thread is worthless, as it is based on an interpretation of History from (your) modern political perspective. I'm afraid it's going to turn into a big flamewar soon. And BTW, read books about the diplomatical talks between UK & France reguarding the 1936 events to have a more objective point of view.

144917[/snapback]

 

I am glad that this topic has generated some good natured and intelligent discussion. And no flames in sight (or site): thanks fellas.

[Pachy]

By the way, I think that Britain did the  right thing in fighting alongside France in 1939-1940.  I think, in hindsight, that neither army fought as smart as they could have, and they should not have just let the Germans come to them.

But eventually they didn't, they went into Belgium. And that's how they got surrounded in the North.

 

But it is also too easy to see things simply, an example of the nature of European politics 1939-1940 can be seen in the ordering, by the RAF, of a batch of Reggiane Re.2000 fighters (themselves copies of Republic P-35 Lancers) in JANUARY 1940.

The Armée de l'air had a few Caproni biplane trainers and twin-engine light bombers delivered from Italy, very late, sometime in March/April 1940 IIRC.

 

In January 1940 it was clear that Hitler considered that peace with Britain was achievable.

He still believed so in late June 1940, didn't he?

[Sparviero]

It seems the Brits were clever to some degree at purchasing strategic materials they didn't need to deny it to the Axis. Oil from Romania early in the war which partially led to the Germans inviting themselves over for lunch iirc and Chromium(or some other vital metals) from Turke, buying out the Turkish production of such for several years are a couple of key items I recall. The Turkish deal I've read in a book the bit about Romanian oil I can't recall reading in a book off the top of my head so I'm not as confident about that information.

[p620346]

The very IDEA that letting Hitler conquer Europe would in any way be in Britain's interest and would "simply amount to the European Union 20 or 30 years earlier" 

Is so mind boggling to me that I have to wonder...

 

If the idea of a German dominated Europe was "unthinkable" why was the possibility of a Soviet dominated one not. After all, Hitler "only" killed 12 million while Stalin killed up to 30 million. Why is killing people based on race/religion so much worse than killing them based on economic class. In any event, Hitlers successors in 2000 probably would have had as much relation to him as Putin has to Stalin.

[Alex]

If the idea of a German dominated Europe was "unthinkable" why was the possibility of a Soviet dominated one not. After all, Hitler "only" killed 12 million while Stalin killed up to 30 million. Why is killing people based on race/religion  so much worse than killing them based on economic class. In any event, Hitlers successors in 2000 probably would have had as much relation to him as Putin has to Stalin.

145648[/snapback]

 

First, Europe was never Soviet dominated and was never in danger of being Soviet dominated. Second, Hitler killed "only" 12 million in 6 years (mostly in 3-4 years), Stalin killed his 30 million in 29 years (mostly in 10-15 years). And most of that 30 million (actually probably around 25 million) died in the famines so weren't really "killed" though the famines can be attributed to Stalin's policies.

 

Finally, no matter how much you may dislike some people you should never compare them to the nazis. The Communists were not as bad as the nazis. The Islamic terrorists are not as bad as the nazis. The Japanese militarists weren't as bad as the nazis. Certainly the EU is not as bad as the nazis. The worst mass murderers in history were not as bad as the nazis. No one was even close. What they did has no parallels in history. The invented industrial mass murder. They killed not by their brutality or stupidity but by their efficiency. Their best scientific minds competed in inventing the quickest and cheapest way to exterminate people.

 

And if that regime was allowed to survive until 2000 only the "master race" would be around to enjoy it's new "enlightened" fuhrer.

Edited February 15, 2005 by Alex

[R011]

Alex,Tue 15 Feb 2005  1826

 

The Communists were not as bad as the nazis.

You mean by only murdering half as many per year, Stalin wasn't comparable to Hitler? How about Mao or Pol Pot? Pol didn't kill as many as Hitler, of course, but he did manage to kill a much higher proportion of the population under his control than the Nazis ever did. I might also note that Hitler never attempted quite the same level of totalitarian opression that Stalin acheived. I would much rather be an ordinary, non-political German living in Berlin in 1939 than an ordinary, non-political Russian in Moscow that same year.

 

The Islamic terrorists are not as bad as the nazis.

 

They aren't as efficient as the Nazis or as powerful. They're still brutal totalitarian racists. A bin Laden government would not be any better than a Nazi one.

 

The Japanese militarists weren't as bad as the nazis

Even though they probably killed more people?

 

Certainly the EU is not as bad as the nazis.

 

Even though they haven't killed anyone and are a democratic . . .oh wait a minute, you're right.

 

There are certainly some people and regimes that are comparable to the Nazis, and others that are not. Claiming that because of the latter, the former does not also apply is fallacious.

[UN-Interested Observer]

Only to a degree and in the longer (i.e., many months to a few years) term.  The responsibility for a public figure in a democracy is both to obey public opinion as expressed through the polls and to try to lead public opinion when necessary. This is particularly true in the case of foreign/defense issues, but one can see this throughout history (e.g., Thomas Paine's "Common Sense" changed many opinions). In the case of Neville Chamberlain and the British government, your characterization is partly valid for the early days of appeasement, but it is also true that the government did its best to sell appeasement to the people and avoid casting German activities in a threatening light (hence the leaking of top secret info to Churchill by some in the military). In the end, your view of the role of the public in democracies may have worked in reverse, for Chamberlain himself the decision to go to war was motivated to a great estent by the desire to stay in power, as public and political opinion had changed dramatically.

145500[/snapback]

 

I rather like the old-fashioned idea that you say what you plan to do before the election, you get elected, and you do it. Churchill, however, was just as influenced by public opinions as anyone. As a matter of fact, in 1941 the bad news from Africa was credited with a by-election being won by an independent in what was thought to be a completely secure riding. The political atmosphere was very tense, there was to be a vote to remove Churchill, and he put enormous pressure on Wavell to deliver impossible miracles - then sacked him, and his successor, after who-knows how many troops died in ill-planned offensives.

 

 

Alex: "First, Europe was never Soviet dominated and was never in danger of being Soviet dominated. Second, Hitler killed "only" 12 million in 6 years (mostly in 3-4 years), Stalin killed his 30 million in 29 years (mostly in 10-15 years). And most of that 30 million (actually probably around 25 million) died in the famines so weren't really "killed" though the famines can be attributed to Stalin's policies."

 

I think that we credit 'Hitler' with all the work done, but iirc there was a high-level meeting in 1943 which actually created the policies. In fact, Germany was divided into regions and each region had a sort of 'regent' with absolute power in charge of it, who answered only to Hitler. This much decentralization meant that any vast organization was difficult. That is beside the point, though. I rather agree that Stalin was not as bad as Hitler, but not because of the numbers. Stalin was collectivizing farms, the farmers organized and fought back. They were fighting over food, with food, and wouldn't you know - people starved. Hitler killed for the sake of making people dead. You are contributing to the economy, you are law abiding, but you will be killed, and we're taking all your money.

[R011]

p620346,Tue 15 Feb 2005  1739

 

If the idea of a German dominated Europe was "unthinkable" why was the possibility of a Soviet dominated one not

It wasn't. That's why NATO was created. UNlike the Nazis, Stalin was careful (or lucky) enough not to give an obvious cuasus belli like the German invasion of Poland or to present enough of an iminemt threat that the West had to respond with a war in turn. After the Soviets got nuclear weapons, of course, a "hot" world war was something no one wanted.

[richard g]

Yes, Pol Pot, now there was a unmatched in modern times mass extermination program, basically without industrial aid too.

 

Yet not one country did anything significant about it. Morality indeed.

[swerve]

I think that we credit 'Hitler' with all the work done, but iirc there was a high-level meeting in 1943 which actually created the policies. In fact, Germany was divided into regions and each region had a sort of 'regent' with absolute power in charge of it, who answered only to Hitler. This much decentralization meant that any vast organization was difficult.

 

What you describe wasn't the administrative structure of Germany, but of the occupied territories in the east (Poland, Ukraine, etc). And while the regional heads did have considerable autonomy, it had to be exercised within the framework laid down by Hitler. So it wasn't possible not to oppress Jews & Gypsies, but there was considerable freedom to decide how to do it.

 

The conference you refer to was the Wannsee conference, January 1942, chaired by Reinhardt Heydrich. It didn't decide policy, it confirmed, & decided how to implement more efficiently, a policy which had already begun to be put into practice in an informal & haphazard way. The minutes survive, although they were ordered to be destroyed, & are very interesting. The methods & organisation of genocide were discussed in detail (but without actually saying what the purpose of the cyanide chambers, etc, was - we know Heydrich edited the minutes, but accounts by participants agree that Heydrich shut up anyone who was so tasteless as to mention death, so the minutes are mostly accurate in that respect). The policy itself was more or less taken for granted by most of those present. The few who didn't go along were sidelined in the discussion, &, it seems, bullied & threatened into silence during the breaks (Heydrich was perfectly capable of smiling at someone, offering him a canape, & enquiring after the health of his children - by name - with immense menace). Heydrich, & after the Czech resistance assassinated him, Himmler, drove the policy forward, but they couldn't have done it without Hitlers approval.

[Manu]

Though it was clear from abundant intelligence and aerial photography where the camps were, what they did, and how - no action was ever taken against them. No bombing missions were ever flown to destroy the ovens, infrastructure, or even just blast holes in razor-wire fences. The entire horrible operation could have been derailed for little expenditure, but we all know it wasn't. It wasn't even condemned publicly, for god's sake, until it was all over.

 

On a 100% cynical military POV, it was better not to bomb the camp : shipping jews there tied up transport ressources that were not used to for troops and equipment - so if you bomb only supplies transport and keep the camps going, you tie up more resources, which is ultimately more detrimental to Nazi war effort (every ressource used to kills jews or other undesirables isn't used to kill your soldiers).

 

Moraly repulsive, but militarily logical.

[R011]

UN-Interested Observer,Wed 16 Feb 2005  0135

 

Hitler killed for the sake of making people dead.

Not only did Stalin do great deal of that as well, the famine was not an unforseen byproduct of policy or resitance to it, but a result of a depraved indifference to human life. There is no moral difference between gassing a Ukrainian for being a Jew or taking away his food knowing that he will starve to death.

 

Whether the motivation for mass murder is Racial Hygeine or Building Socialism is immaterial.

 

Tue 15 Feb 2005 0118

 

Though it was clear from abundant intelligence and aerial photography where the camps were, what they did, and how

 

As for bombing the camps, the Western Allies had a number of reasons not to do so. Firstly, they did not know from photo recce what was happening inside the camps. Their sources came mostly from Jewish refugees. One can hardly blame them for taking such an obviously biased source telling such an outlandish story with a grain of salt.

 

They also decided that the best way to help the inmates of the camps was not to kill them for the Nazis , but to win the war.

 

Lastly, even the closest of the camps, Auschwitz, was barely within bomber range and outside fighter escort range. At best, they would only encourage the Nazis to move the surviving inmates to Treblinka, Sobibor, and the other death camps.

 

No bombing missions were ever flown to destroy the ovens, infrastructure, or even just blast holes in razor-wire fences.

That level of accuracy was beyond night bombers of the time, and day bombers were rarely able to acheive it in practice, even if they would launch a day bomber raid without fighter escort.

 

It wasn't even condemned publicly, for god's sake, until it was all over.

Who would believe it? A civilized European nation committing industrial murder on a scale of millions? That's even more outlandish than the propaganda they used in the Great War about Germans bayonetting Belgian babies, stories known to have been false by 1944. It was so outlandish that even today, there are not only Holocaust deniers, but people who will take them seriously.

[UN-Interested Observer]

What you describe wasn't the administrative structure of Germany, but of the occupied territories in the east (Poland, Ukraine, etc). And while the regional heads did have considerable autonomy, it had to be exercised within the framework laid down by Hitler. So it wasn't possible not to oppress Jews & Gypsies, but there was considerable freedom to decide how to do it.

 

The conference you refer to was the Wannsee conference, January 1942, chaired by Reinhardt Heydrich. It didn't decide policy, it confirmed, & decided how to implement more efficiently,

145954[/snapback]

 

Thank you, that is good to know. I saw a video based on this very subject in the rental shop just the other day, I should probably rent it now, I'll let you know. I remember seeing a picture of Hitler with all his 'lieutenants' on an episode of 'World at War', though. It mentioned the different regions of Germany, I thought it meant Ruhr and Bavaria, but I guess I could have insinuated that when it really meant conquered areas.

 

 

Manu; that certainly is thinking outside the box, but I'm not sure it's gone through a thorough cost-benefit analysis. For instance, if a bombing mission hits a death camp, those that can walk will try to escape, and resources must be put into tring to recapture them. Then you have to replace the guards that are killed, repair the ovens and fences and all that stuff - it would really put a kink in the machine.

 

 

R011; I still think that when 2 sides fight with food over food for control of food, someone is going to starve. For instance, it was not like the Gypsies were fighting with chemical companies for control of Cyclon B gas. I rather agree with your point, though, except that you can surrender to a new system of government, a new economic system. You cannot surrender and change your genes. I just have this intangible feeling that conflicts over money and power are standard, while conflicts over ethnicity and race are a level below that.

 

I still think we knew what the camps were, however. If one did not believe the articles in German newspapers in the late 1930's that could be understandable, but when the ships packed with (what is that word for deporting and entire population?) those emmigrants are off your coast, it becomes more believable. It's hard to understand why the combined intelligence power of the mightiest coalition in the history of the world, one that could regularly decrypt even high-level Enigma transmissions, why they could not figure out that 'Death Camps' and 'Jewish Ghettos' and 'Death Squads' with soldiers in Poland marching Jews through the streets every single day, shooting them in the forest, and coming back - how could intelligence not figure out this was the 'Final Solution to the Jewish Problem'.

 

I had not considered the range in boming the camps, that is a good point. I think, though, that allied planes did operate out of Russia, and the further you are from Britain, the closer you are to Russia. Still, if I were in a camp I would pray for bombers to come every damned day. Accuracy may have been low (largely crew-based), but that didn't stop any other missions. A few bombs would be likely to damage railways or essential equipment.

 

As for propaganda, in WW1 the Germans had a corpse-factory to use human bodies for war materiel... It's disturbing to me that it was considered acceptable to lie about these things to incite anger against the Hun during WW1, yet when they really happen in WW2 the Nazis don't get any bad press, we help them keep the whole affair hidden not only from their citizens but our own, and make no effort to hinder the process.

[R011]

UN-Interested Observer,Wed 16 Feb 2005  2249

 

I still think that when 2 sides fight with food over food for control of food, someone is going to starve.

There were not two sides fighting for control, the Soviet stae already has it. The famine was the resulat of that Soviet state deliberately removing more food from the Ukraine than the populace needed to survive.

 

I rather agree with your point, though, except that you can surrender to a new system of government, a new economic system

 

Many victims of the purges were good Communists. Others were condemned by having been born bourgoise, Cossack, Chechen, or ethnic German among other reasons.

 

but when the ships packed with (what is that word for deporting and entire population?) those emmigrants are off your coast, it becomes more believable.

When that was happening, the Germans were not yet confining Jews to camps or even ghettos. They had passed the Nuremberg Laws which subjected Jews to a similar, though more serious, form of segregation than African-Americans had to endure in some states. They did know that Jews were routinely confined, tortured, and often murdered,. They didn't know for some time that the murders were more than occassional casual massacres or collateral with general mistreatment and confinement.

 

I still think we knew what the camps were,

 

We knew about the labour camps and ghettos, and we knew that conditions there were brutal in the extreme. I don't believe they knew what the death camps were until it was too late to do anythiing useful.

 

It's hard to understand why the combined intelligence power of the mightiest coalition in the history of the world, one that could regularly decrypt even high-level Enigma transmissions, why they could not figure out that 'Death Camps' and 'Jewish Ghettos' and 'Death Squads' with soldiers in Poland marching Jews through the streets every single day, shooting them in the forest, and coming back - how could intelligence not figure out this was the 'Final Solution to the Jewish Problem'.

Surely you do not think that the Germans were publicising the executions? Nor was it normal or necessary for radio traffic to discusss them even in code. It isn't as if there were intel officers in every Polish and Ukrainian village or BBC reporters embedded with Special Action Groups (they didn't call thenm "death squads") reporting on what was going on. In terms of information, german occupied Eastern Europe was a grat black hole - one reason the camps were located there. The intel they were getting about the camps was mostly from Zionist sources. They had a vested interest in spreading anti-Nazi stories, which made their credibily on this subject to doubt.

 

I just have this intangible feeling that conflicts over money and power are standard,

 

The victims are just as dead if they're murdered in the interests of some economically retarded economic policy or some insane racial theory.

 

I think, though, that allied planes did operate out of Russia,

If they did, it was certainly not with any frequency. I'm also not sure that Stalin would have given permission for a operation that was of no benfit to Soviet forces.

 

Accuracy may have been low (largely crew-based), but that didn't stop any other missions.

 

When the mission is to destroy a city, hotting within a mile or so of the aiming point is acceptable. Hitting specific buildings was beyond 1945 nav systems and bomb sights except in exceptional, i.e. training ground, circumstances.

 

yet when they really happen in WW2 the Nazis don't get any bad press,

 

Why diminish the effectiveness of anti-Nazi propaganda by spreading unvbelievable stories about "death camps"?

[Guest phil gollin]

As far as I know there are only two raids that are really representative of the accuracy that might have been required for an attempt to breach the fences of a death camp. Both were by mosquitos, one on the Gestapo Headquarters in Rotterdam (?) and one, more relevant, on a prison holding resistance prisoners. The second is interesting because there were great discussions before it was given the go ahead because of the cnsequences of badly aimed bombs. During the raid which was sort of judged a success, one bomb did go astray and killed prisoners.

 

The allies DID know what was going on, although levels of belief tended to vary due to the SCALE envisaged as did the quality of the information over time. The first info came from Jewish escapees and resistance groups, as has been said this tended to be thought of as huge exagerations. They later picked up Enigma intercepts, first of death squads in Eastern Europe (this is what the "Enigma" book and film are based on) and later the general admin of the camps. There were discussions re. attacks, but it was too far for British based mosquitos and even then what was to be done ? There SEEMED no point in destroying the fences as the prisoners couldn't really go anywhere but there were schemes looking at destroying the rail junctions (by heavy bombers). But they seemed to have petered out quite quickly.

 

As a matter of interest this would only have stopped a small amount of the killing. Whilst the "Holocaust" killing of the Jews, Gypsies (Romany), homosexuals, etc.... amounted for 6 million odd, there were another 5 to 6 million civilians killed by the Nazis (figures DO vary) which include mass killings and deliberate starvation in occupied Eastern Europe and Russia and killing/working to death of Russian Prisoners of War.

 

As to the much more difficault question re comparing Hitler to Stalin to Pol Pot, one has to try to decide between evils which one can't really envisage. Personally I find Pol Pot the worst (killing a third of the population) but I really think it's rather pointless.

 

(Edited forlousy memory and awful typing)

Edited February 17, 2005 by phil gollin

[swerve]

I still think we knew what the camps were, however. If one did not believe the articles in German newspapers in the late 1930's that could be understandable, but when the ships packed with (what is that word for deporting and entire population?) those emmigrants are off your coast, it becomes more believable. It's hard to understand why the combined intelligence power of the mightiest coalition in the history of the world, one that could regularly decrypt even high-level Enigma transmissions, why they could not figure out that 'Death Camps' and 'Jewish Ghettos' and 'Death Squads' with soldiers in Poland marching Jews through the streets every single day, shooting them in the forest, and coming back - how could intelligence not figure out this was the 'Final Solution to the Jewish Problem'.

 

The refugee ships have been discussed already, but I think I should add this: all the refugee ships left Germany before a single death camp had been set up, before a single mass execution had occurred, before even the concentration of Jews into ghettos had begun. None of that began until after the occupation of Poland.

 

The Germans never referred to "Death Camps" even in secret internal documents. The Wannsee conference participants used euphemisms (e.g "Special handling" - a term later used generally). The minutes mentioned (e.g.) burning as a means of disposal - but it was never said what was being disposed of. If it was like that at the highest level policy meeting, what do you think it was like lower down? I read a report a few years ago of an incident in Ukraine. The Jewish population of some small shtetl had been massacred, but the murderers hadn't been able to stomach killing the children, so they'd separated them beforehand & sent them to a nearby town, where they were housed in a school. There were frantic discussions on how to get rid of them, with messages flying back & forth between army, SS, civil & other authorities, everyone buck-passing. The nearest anyone got to hinting that they might be killed, rather than just moved to somewhere where they could be housed long-term, was someone pointing out that the removal would have to be done tactfully, since the local German garrison had adopted them (feeding them from their own rations, arranged medical care, etc), & care would have to be taken not to upset the soldiers lest they intervene. They were trying to pretend even to soldiers on the Eastern Front, most of whom must have had a pretty good idea what was going on, that Jewish children were being taken away to orphanages or for adoption.

 

There were no "soldiers . . marching Jews through the streets every single day, shooting them in the forest, and coming back". When the Jewish population of a locality was massacred, it was done all at once, in most cases by a special unit brought in for the purpose. 5000 men in 4 units killed 2 million people (the majority Jews, but also Gypsies & some others) that way. They arrived, marched the Jews away or put them on a train or in lorries, & never came back. So they could maintain the fiction the Jews had been taken to another place. Since there really were many movements of Jews to ghettos, it was often a convincing fiction.

 

All this was deliberate. The Nazis tried to make sure as few people knew as possible. Nothing so big could be completely secret, but it was as secret as they could make it. Everyone knew they were treating Jews horribly, & they didn't care, but they didn't want the world to know quite how horribly.

 

BTW, if that Wannsee video is the film with Kenneth Branagh as Heydrich, it's pretty good, & AFAIK as historically accurate as they could make it. I recommend it.

Edited February 17, 2005 by swerve

[swerve]

There were not two sides fighting for control, the Soviet stae already has it.  The famine was the resulat of that Soviet state deliberately removing more food from the Ukraine than the populace needed to survive.

 

That was one famine, deliberately created to cow the Ukrainians, who were getting uppity, & to change the demographic balance in E. Ukraine & Kubanin favour of "more loyal" Russians, especially urban Russians. There were others which weren't deliberate, e.g. the Kazakhstan famine slightly earlier, which is generally held to be the model for Ukraine. Local officials desperate to please lied about food production (very bad as a result of forced collectivisation of Kazakh herdsmen, they said it was good), then met the consequent unrealistic delivery quotas set by Moscow by stripping the populace of food. About 1 million Kazakhs (25%) starved. Many officials were then shot. But the previously rebellious Kazakhs were broken, & Stalin was very interested in how it had been done.