Was Hitler really surprised when England and France followed thru and declared war?

Discussions on High Command, strategy and the Armed Forces (Wehrmacht) in general.
User avatar
wm
Member
Posts: 7157
Joined: 29 Dec 2006 20:11
Location: Poland

Re: Was Hitler really surprised when England and France followed thru and declared war?

Post by wm » 02 Dec 2021 22:00

The point is the Americans found 798-PS in 1945 and Lochner had nothing to do with it - especially in 1942.

Was the extraterritorial highway the continuation of the police of Weimar?
The Weimar regime demanded the Posen province, the corridor, and Upper Silesia but Hitler didn't - so hardly a continuation.
So no, Hitler didn't want the territories Germany lost in 1918.
So the question is why?
Why didn't Hitler want the territories Germany lost in 1918?
This is why:
I wanted, first of all, to establish a tolerable relationship with Poland in order to fight first against the West.
France didn't abandon Poland in 1929 - citation needed.

Plan Z had the highest priority till it was canceled for lack of resources.

Boby
Member
Posts: 2719
Joined: 19 Nov 2004 17:22
Location: Spain

Re: Was Hitler really surprised when England and France followed thru and declared war?

Post by Boby » 03 Dec 2021 00:10

That even before Munich, Hitler and co were preparing for a possible (probable) war with the west sometime in 1942 or 1943 (Goering: das großer Krieg kaum mehr zu vermeiden) doesn't mean he was preparing to attack the west.

ljadw
Member
Posts: 13122
Joined: 13 Jul 2009 17:50

Re: Was Hitler really surprised when England and France followed thru and declared war?

Post by ljadw » 03 Dec 2021 06:40

wm wrote:
02 Dec 2021 22:00
The point is the Americans found 798-PS in 1945 and Lochner had nothing to do with it - especially in 1942.

Was the extraterritorial highway the continuation of the police of Weimar?
The Weimar regime demanded the Posen province, the corridor, and Upper Silesia but Hitler didn't - so hardly a continuation.
So no, Hitler didn't want the territories Germany lost in 1918.
So the question is why?
Why didn't Hitler want the territories Germany lost in 1918?
This is why:
I wanted, first of all, to establish a tolerable relationship with Poland in order to fight first against the West.
France didn't abandon Poland in 1929 - citation needed.

Plan Z had the highest priority till it was canceled for lack of resources.
1 There is no proof that Canaris took notes during the meeting at the Obersalzberg
2 If he took notes, there is no proof that they were reliable
3 There is no proof that Canaris informed Lochner about the meeting
4 If he did ,there is no proof that what Lochner said was the truth .
Conclusions :
1 There are no proofs for Hitler's references to the Armenians and to Chengis Khan .
2 798 -ps is even less reliable than the minutes about the conference from November 1937 .
The only person who could confirm that 798-ps was correct, was Hitler .
Non authorized notes can not be used to prove the content of a speech .
If Hitler wanted to attack the West, why did he order to construct the Westwall,which was a defensive measure and why did he blame Imperial Germany for its attack on the West in 1914 .

ljadw
Member
Posts: 13122
Joined: 13 Jul 2009 17:50

Re: Was Hitler really surprised when England and France followed thru and declared war?

Post by ljadw » 03 Dec 2021 07:13

About 1929 : that year France decided to build the Maginot Line,to protect itself against a non existent German danger,as the Reichswehr could not attack France .
This means that France accepted the remilitarisation of Germany which was a big danger for Poland , less for France .Versailles was out .
The fact that France was using its resources for a defensive aim,meant that France would/could no longer invade Germany if Germany attacked Poland ( or Czechoslovakia or Austria ) .
One of the reasons for the construction of the ML (and maybe the most important ) was that the alliance with Poland had ceased to be useful for France ( one can argue that it never was useful for France ) and that the danger of this alliance was that it could oblige France to fight for Poland,if there was a war between Poland and the USSR,or CZ,or Lithuania .
Why would French soldiers die for Teszin,or Wilna ?
France had no wish to be involved in quarrels in Eastern Europe,as Eastern Europe was not essential for France .
And, if Poland needed France to protect itself against Germany,why should France need Poland to protect itself against Germany ? The military strength of Poland was negligible .
Only a strong Poland could help France, but a strong Poland would not need the help of France.

Boby
Member
Posts: 2719
Joined: 19 Nov 2004 17:22
Location: Spain

Re: Was Hitler really surprised when England and France followed thru and declared war?

Post by Boby » 03 Dec 2021 10:13

Ljadw, you are confusing L-3 with 798-PS.

L-3 is the Lochner document. That Canaris took notes is corroborated by Groscurth diary.

User avatar
wm
Member
Posts: 7157
Joined: 29 Dec 2006 20:11
Location: Poland

Re: Was Hitler really surprised when England and France followed thru and declared war?

Post by wm » 03 Dec 2021 14:18

ljadw wrote:
03 Dec 2021 07:13
The fact that France was using its resources for a defensive aim,meant that France would/could no longer invade Germany if Germany attacked Poland ( or Czechoslovakia or Austria ) .
the Maginot Line had never been conceived as a sort of Great Wall of China sealing France off from the outside world.
Its purpose was to free manpower for offensive operations elsewhere.

The Maginot Line: The History of the Fortifications that Failed to Protect France from Nazi Germany During World War II
The first step of the plan was to delay and prevent the enemy from advancing into French territory during the first few weeks of conflict while the army mobilised.
The next step would be to hold the enemy for many months while the new instruments of war went into production. ...
This led to the idea of a massive commitment to fortifications that would stop a German offensive, even a surprise attack, and allow the army several weeks to mobilise.
...
This would allow any French offensive room to maneuver.

The Maginot Line by J. E. Kaufmann, H. W. Kaufmann

ljadw
Member
Posts: 13122
Joined: 13 Jul 2009 17:50

Re: Was Hitler really surprised when England and France followed thru and declared war?

Post by ljadw » 03 Dec 2021 15:06

Kaufman is wrong and contradicts himself .
And the first quote is also wrong .

For Kaufman :
''the first step of the plan was to delay and prevent the enemy from advancing into French territory..." : this danger did not exist when the construction of the ML was decided,as the Reichswehr could not advance into French territory .
This means that France admitted the remilitarisation of Germany .
And, as we know that Hitler had no intention to invade France,the (hidden or not ) reason for the ML was that France had given up Eastern Europe ,as this region was not essential for the survival of France .
An other reason for the ML was NOT that it would give France additional manpower ,but that it would enable the French government to decrease the duration of conscription and to gain votes at the election .
France could do without Poland, thus no French government would risk a new massacre to aid a country whose existence was not needed for the survival of France .
The fact that the French occupation forces in Germany left quickly after the ML decision and that France did nothing against the remilitarisation of the Rhineland is another proof that France returned to its traditional isolationism .
Other point : offensive operations elsewhere is meaningless : elsewhere means Germany . The French had no intention to invade Germany .

ljadw
Member
Posts: 13122
Joined: 13 Jul 2009 17:50

Re: Was Hitler really surprised when England and France followed thru and declared war?

Post by ljadw » 03 Dec 2021 18:44

Boby wrote:
03 Dec 2021 10:13
Ljadw, you are confusing L-3 with 798-PS.

L-3 is the Lochner document. That Canaris took notes is corroborated by Groscurth diary.
My mistake, but,are there proofs that 798-PS is reliable ?
About Groscurth : was he present at the meeting?
If so ,we know that Canaris took notes, but we don't know if these notes gave a correct picture,if Canaris gave them to Lockner and if what Lockner said corresponds to what Canaris wrote .
The fact is that there was no stenographer who took notes and that Hitler never read the notes from Canaris .
If the notes of Canaris were reliable and he gave them to Lockner and Lockner proposed them to Britain, why was British propaganda not spreading and using them ?British propaganda used later the ''Molders letters '',why not the Canaris notes ?
We can assume that no one in Britain believed what Lockner told them .
Thus we may conclude that there is no proof at all for the claim that Hitler said that his generals should act as Djengis Khan and act in Poland as the Turks in Armenia .

Boby
Member
Posts: 2719
Joined: 19 Nov 2004 17:22
Location: Spain

Re: Was Hitler really surprised when England and France followed thru and declared war?

Post by Boby » 03 Dec 2021 20:35

Groscurth was not present, he wrote that Canaris showed him the notes taken during Hitler's speech:

"Chef zeigte mir 2 Stunden lang seine Tagebücher und die Rede des Führers an die Oberbefehlshaber, die er allein in Stichworten mitgeschrieben hat."

"Beide könnten aber täglich und
stündlich durch einen Verbrecher oder Idioten umgelegt werden."

"Der Krieg würde bis zur völligen Vernichtung Polens geführt
mit größter Brutalität und ohne Rücksichten. Nicht Land sei zu besetzen, sondern die Kräfte seien zu vernichten."

Which corresponds clearly with 798-PS. Of course, one can doubt if Canaris notes were a 100% objective rendering of the monologue, i.e, if he inserted some passages that Hitler never said, but this seems improbable as per Baumgart research.

L-3 is the armenian quote version, difficult to trace back. Lochner received it from Heinrich Maass, he in turn from Beck, and supposedly Beck from Oster and Oster from Canaris. This version was a heavy propagandist one concocted by the Abwehr.

ljadw
Member
Posts: 13122
Joined: 13 Jul 2009 17:50

Re: Was Hitler really surprised when England and France followed thru and declared war?

Post by ljadw » 06 Dec 2021 07:39

The L-3 version is for under the bus :4 persons received each this text in succession and had each the opportunity to ''correct '' him .
798-PS: the same ,as the author(s ) of it are unknown and as the authors were probably not present at the meetings .
Other point : some 50 persons were present at the meetings on the Obersalzberg .
Has anyone of them confirmed the objectivity and reliability of the Canaris notes ?
All we have is a meeting ( 2 meetings ) with 50 persons present and one of them making notes ,using ''stichworten '' (headwords ),while no one of those present ever read these notes .

Boby
Member
Posts: 2719
Joined: 19 Nov 2004 17:22
Location: Spain

Re: Was Hitler really surprised when England and France followed thru and declared war?

Post by Boby » 06 Dec 2021 12:28

Ljadw, I suggest you reading the Baumgart article. There is a lot of information, memoirs and testimonies at IMT/NMT are analyzed, even correspondence in the 60s with people present there.

Boby

ljadw
Member
Posts: 13122
Joined: 13 Jul 2009 17:50

Re: Was Hitler really surprised when England and France followed thru and declared war?

Post by ljadw » 06 Dec 2021 16:07

I am busy with reading the article,which is very interesting .
Some generals claimed that everyone was in uniform, others that they were wearing plain clothes.
Two generals denied that they were present,if so the list of those who were present is not correct .

Boby
Member
Posts: 2719
Joined: 19 Nov 2004 17:22
Location: Spain

Re: Was Hitler really surprised when England and France followed thru and declared war?

Post by Boby » 06 Dec 2021 20:44


User avatar
wm
Member
Posts: 7157
Joined: 29 Dec 2006 20:11
Location: Poland

Re: Was Hitler really surprised when England and France followed thru and declared war?

Post by wm » 15 Dec 2021 21:28

ljadw wrote:
03 Dec 2021 15:06
Kaufman is wrong and contradicts himself .
And the first quote is also wrong .
It has often been alleged that the Line contributed to France's defeat by making the military too complacent and defense-minded. Such accusations are unfounded. Certainly, the Maginot Line was constructed in the service of a defensive strategy. ...
[T]he Maginot Line had never been conceived as a sort of Great Wall of China sealing France off from the outside world.
Its purpose was to free manpower for offensive operations elsewhere—especially important given France's demographic inferiority to Germany —and to protect the forces of manoeuvre.

The logic behind Weygand's support for the mechanization and modernization of the army in the 1930s was to permit a rapid advance by the French army into Belgium. French strategy was based on the idea of forward defence in Belgium. Having set up positions in Belgium, the army would prepare for the offensive which would ultimately win the war.

The Fall of France by Julian Jackson
Anyway, the Maginot Line has nothing to do with anything. Hitler didn't consult French generals or Stalin, didn't care what they were thinking when he decided to invade Poland.

ljadw
Member
Posts: 13122
Joined: 13 Jul 2009 17:50

Re: Was Hitler really surprised when England and France followed thru and declared war?

Post by ljadw » 16 Dec 2021 06:31

Hitler did care what Stalin was thinking when he decided to invade Poland .

Return to “German Strategy & General German Military Discussion”