Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ

Wars and ConflictsΒ  permalink

did hitler have a long term plan for occupied Europe?

• Message 1.Β 

  Posted by Shaz519 (U2827975) on Thursday, 30th July 2009

  The Nazis made it clear that they saw the slavs of eastern europe esp the Russians as inferiors. They were also against their system of government, under the leader with a bigger 'tache than their commander in chief. Did Hitler doubt the French & British would fight over Poland? So did he have an exit strategy after occupying europe, unlike Bush & Blair? Did he hope 2 install nazi regimes like Stalin did in eastern europe under the iron curtain? Or was he expecting war in the west, but after he defeated the russians?

  Link to this forum: did hitler have a long term plan for occupied Europe?

  Report message1

• Message 2

  , in reply to message 1.

  Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Thursday, 30th July 2009

  Shaz, good question. I (playing the smart guy now) am more or less convinced that Germans had always been 2nd role actors in the world scene. They were not up to the task to have long term strategies (maximum they could do was with Bismarc). However, their finance sector was an intrinsic part of the international scene and thus being not the biggest they followed.
  
  You better ask where Hitler found the money to do what he did rather than whether he had "exit plans" or "alternative plans" or a "longer term strategy". He obviously had not. Had he had a longer term strategy he would have certainly sent 3 million soldiers to finish off with Britain (and Britain would be finished off even if British navy sunk all German navy (on the overall inferior to British) and Germans had to swim to get there). And only when he would had done that could he ever dream of setting foot to Russia. Would Russia attack Germany if Germany did so? Certainly. Would Germany have the time to finish off with Britain? Certainly.
  
  Instead what we saw was a concentrated effort of Germans to de-concentrate their armies in the most irrelevant efforts (middle east, balkans etc.) and of course an unprepared attack on Russia. Whoever wants to argue about Germans trying to control the oil in the Middle East (true but was it deasible with all these expenses to get there? wouldn't it be 10 times cheaper if Britain was out?). Check out the Byzantines on that. They could fight 10 enemies at the same time but not exactly at the same day, they usually did it on after the other. You cannot eat digestif, main course and dessert at the same time - it will become sour.
  
  Obviously complete lack of long term strategy.

  Link to this forum: did hitler have a long term plan for occupied Europe?

  Report message2

• Message 3

  , in reply to message 1.

  Posted by suvorovetz (U12273591) on Thursday, 30th July 2009

  Shaz519 Did Hitler doubt the French & British would fight over Poland?Β  Not only Hitler was shocked when on September 3, 1939, he found out that the French and the British declared war against him, he had attacked Poland with barely enough munitions to sustain this campaign, according to Mueller-Hillebrandt. So, apparently, Hitler did not really know what he was getting into.

  Link to this forum: did hitler have a long term plan for occupied Europe?

  Report message3

• Message 4

  , in reply to message 3.

  Posted by Spruggles (U13892773) on Friday, 31st July 2009

  There was a book published some years ago called 'The Devil's Virtuosos', anyone read it? In it the author, David Downing, expresses his argument that the German generals were reluctant to attack Poland not only because they were hardly prepared for what they saw as a major offensive but also an inevitable war with France and Britain should be avoided at all costs, well at least for another couple of years. Hitler insisted and the rest is history. He also states that because of Hitler's initial successes the generals were reluctant to speak out against him in future.
  As far as the east is concerned he always muted the idea of controlling Russia(see his recorded conversations and after-dinner speeches) He was also suspicious of Russian politics and hated Bolshevism almost as much as he hated Jews. He dismissed the fighting capability of the Russians(Finland - Russo/Japanese War) and considered the population as sub-human. His expansion into the east was at first purely economic. The country needed capital. He needed oil and raw materials and he needed the factories and the vast wheat growing areas of Czechoslovakia and Poland was ideal for colonization in which he invited Stalin to share. Of course once established in these territories it would be far easier to invade Russia. One aspect of the invasion of Yugoslavia often overlooked was its rail links to Romania and Bulgaria, again of vital importance to the expansion of the German State.
  Of course his strategy was based on his megalomania(he saw himself as a manifestation of the Great Germanic Warriors and considered himself the savour of the German people) hence the Third Reich. If you doubt his mania look at his designs for the future Berlin!
  The invasion of Britain may or may not have worked(see the Bodleian Library's recent reproduction of the 1940 Invasion Plans) and the gathered intelligence at his disposal. I have serious doubts that it would have succeeded myself. (Despite E-Nic's several posts to the contrary, I don't think swimming across was a viable option).
  He would have been better served had he consolidated his position in Czechoslovakia and moved into the Mediterranean and the Middle East, but then why didn't he? Was it because he was only interested(frightened of) in Russia?
  Your turn to guess.
  Regards Spruggles.

  Link to this forum: did hitler have a long term plan for occupied Europe?

  Report message4

• Message 5

  , in reply to message 4.

  Posted by Thomas_B (U1667093) on Friday, 31st July 2009

  Hi Spruggles,
  
  Below you can click on the link which will lead you to an map from the documentation centre Obersalzberg, showing you how Europe would look like, if Germany had won WWII. The map and its exlantations are in English, so you can read it.
  
  
  
  
  Regards
  
  Thomas

  Link to this forum: did hitler have a long term plan for occupied Europe?

  Report message5

• Message 6

  , in reply to message 5.

  Posted by TimTrack (U1730472) on Friday, 31st July 2009

  Thomas,
  
  That is an interesting map. Is it taken directly from Nazi sources, or a later interpretation ?
  
  However, the notable area is the pink bit in the East. That is the area of land that Hitler planned to colonize with German settlers. The infamous 'lebensraum'.
  
  Hitler invaded Poland as a stepping stone to gain access to that area. According to Professor Kershaw, in his Hitler biography, when Britain and France declared war over Poland, he turned to his advisors and said "What now". He does not seem to have planned for that reaction.
  
  He probably intended to attack the Soviet Union come what may by about 1943.
  
  Prior to September 1939, the Nazis turned the German economy into a strange concoction, dependent on eventual war, and the booty that they hoped to gain from it. War wa inevitable from the moment the Nazis took over the economy of Germany.
  
  Did Hitler have an exit strategy ? No, rather the opposite. He intended his conquest to be eternal.

  Link to this forum: did hitler have a long term plan for occupied Europe?

  Report message6

• Message 7

  , in reply to message 6.

  Posted by Thomas_B (U1667093) on Friday, 31st July 2009

  Hi Tim,
  
  From what I remember about the website of the documentations centre Obersalzberg, the map on the link has been created by real plans of the NS-leaders for the creation of the "Great Germanian Empire of German Nation" (Grossgermanisches Reich Deutscher Nation). It has got the titel "Utopia" because it was never realized and who knows if this ever had become reality. But those planes can be taken as serious for the time when Hitler had won the war. The plans dates from the early 1940s, before the fall of Stalingrad.
  
  However, the notable area is the pink bit in the East. That is the area of land that Hitler planned to colonize with German settlers. The infamous 'lebensraum'.Β 
  
  I like to recommend you to pay attention on the "RED Borderline" which shows the extention of this "Greater Germany" and for further informations, you could visit the website of the Obersalzberg Documentation Centre.
  
  Here is the links to its homepage:
  
  
  
  IΒ΄ve chosen the English Language for the link in advance, so that it suits to these boards.
  
  IΒ΄ve read on several times the pages of the Obersalzberg Document Centre and it gives an good over view on the main topics related to that historical period.
  
  Did Hitler have an exit strategy ? No, rather the opposite. He intended his conquest to be eternal.Β 
  
  You are right, he was too thick and stubborn in his insane as that he even had think for a minute to give up his plans. Even then when the Red Army was just a mile close to his bunker.
  
  Now I have to leave.
  
  Regards
  
  Thomas
  
  
  

  Link to this forum: did hitler have a long term plan for occupied Europe?

  Report message7

• Message 8

  , in reply to message 7.

  Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Saturday, 1st August 2009

  Spruggles, I have a high opinion of the British army and in many respects it was superior to the German. But somehow it lacked the efficieny of the German one. It was not a secret that almost on all 1 on 1 cases the Germans were winners be it in attack or defense! British officers declared that no matter if in defense or attack, if having less than 3/2 ratio they risked defeat. In a case that a 3 million allied army arrived in Calais, I am not so sure that the superior British navy would be enough. And India was really far to bring Indian army to attack Germans (from where? From Iran?) Especially when your house is already on fire. British population would capitulate easily on first sight of Germans not because they were more cowards than others but simply because that was a highly urbanised and geographically very flat island giving absolutely no chance to continue to fight on it. That is why British were desperate to keep war out of their region, British were very good at fighting in France and up to the sea but no, with 3 million Germans there, I am sorry, all things tell us that it would be game over for an island that historically capitulated to the first random invader that landed.

  Link to this forum: did hitler have a long term plan for occupied Europe?

  Report message8

• Message 9

  , in reply to message 1.

  Posted by Mutatis_Mutandis (U8620894) on Saturday, 1st August 2009

  German civil servants used to grumble that the masters of the Thousand-Year Reich never thought five minutes ahead. Occupied Europe was mostly an improvisation, and Hitler's policy was an uneasy, and at times nonsensical, mix of ideology and practicality.
  
  The ideology of national socialism prescribed that people ought to leave in ethnically and culturally homogeneous nation states. The Nazis expected to redraw the map, changing not only the borders but moving entire populations. Europe would be dominated by a greater Germany, incorporating not only the traditional German territory but probably also the Netherlands, the Flemish part of Belgium, Denmark, the Baltic states, a large chunk of France, part of Switzerland, Poland, and of course European Russia all he way to the Ural. The people who lived there would be "Germanized" if they were racially acceptable (mostly in the West), or deported or exterminated if they were not (mostly in the East). The Nazis dreamt of a colonization by Germanic warrior-farmers of the "Lebensraum" they would win in the East; Hitler and Speer already had scale models of the farms and the new cities they would build there. One of the obvious problems was that, even at the broadest definitions of who was German, they weren't remotely enough Germans to bring such plans into reality.
  
  The practical problem was that of fighting the war, and as the war situation became worse, ideology was put aside in favour of more straightforward exploitation. The Nazis could not afford to afford industrial production or farming in the occupied territories, and the need for workers (and eventually soldiers) meant that notions of racial and cultural purity had to be compromised.
  
  In Western Europe the administration was relatively professional, usually relaying on the civil service of the occupied countries to keep things running. Economic plunder was organized by making the occupied nations pay an artificially inflated cost of occupation (in principle that was an accepted practice of war), and then converting these debts into goods that were transported to Germany. While that meant hardship, it didn't come close to what happened in the East, were German confiscations of foodstuffs had the intentional side effect of starving the people, especially in the cities.
  
  However, it would be misleading to suggest that there was a coherent approach. The Hitlerian regime thrived on chaos, on people being set up with conflicting roles so that Hitler would be the only arbiter. Responsibilities for the occupation were divided between the Army, Himmler's SS, various more or less competent "Gauleiter" who acted like little kings in their own domain, the ministry of economics (under control of Goering), local collaborators and puppet governments, the foreign ministry, ad-hoc creations like Rosenberg's "Ministry of the Occupied Territories in the East", and of course anyone Hitler chose to appoint. They all had conflicting agendas, besides plundering their territory to their own benefit.
  

  Link to this forum: did hitler have a long term plan for occupied Europe?

  Report message9

• Message 10

  , in reply to message 9.

  Posted by Laura988 (U14088665) on Sunday, 2nd August 2009

  "However, it would be misleading to suggest that there was a coherent approach. The Hitlerian regime thrived on chaos, on people being set up with conflicting roles so that Hitler would be the only arbiter."
  
  Well, it depends. Germans carried out some very well prepared actions, e.g. AB Aktion aimed at elimination of Polish intellectuals. Before inavding Poland they had prepared (in many cases in cooperation with members of German minority living in Poland) lists including thousands of names of Polish doctors, lawyers, teachers etc. for every signle village. My grandmother told me that when in September 1939 Germans entered her town they knew exactly who was who (particulary who took part in Polish fights for independence in 1918). These people were immediately executed.
  More details here:
  

  Link to this forum: did hitler have a long term plan for occupied Europe?

  Report message10

• Message 11

  , in reply to message 8.

  Posted by Spruggles (U13892773) on Monday, 3rd August 2009

  E-Nikolaos-E,
  Whilst I dislike dealing in speculations I will indulge myself to reply to your post.
  First. Do not underestimate the British people. History tells us that like their cousins in Germany they can be incredibly tough and resilient. They forged the largest empire after all and you don't do that by being polite and running away when danger threatens.
  I think too that you underestimate the forces and logistics required to both invade and to sustain a war. Please have a look at how much of the Wehrmacht relied on horse power in 1940/1941, for example.
  There is also the matter of our rail links which was not put out of action and the reserve aircraft in the north that could be called upon.
  We also had stock piles of Anthrax and Hydro-cyanic gas which we might have used if the worse came to the worse and don't try to tell me that Churchill would not have been ruthless enough to use it(more speculation).
  The major reason to invade Britain would have been that it was strategically important for the Germanic longer term vision. All it would have done, if sucessful, was remove a possible thorn in their side but which perhaps like you he dismissed the British as irrelevant to his expansion policies.
  However, the truth is that those who advised Adolf the Barmy gave the concept short shrift and my view(they would be relieved to hear)is broadly in line with their opinions.
  Thanks for your posts which are always worth reading,
  Regards Spruggles.

  Link to this forum: did hitler have a long term plan for occupied Europe?

  Report message11

• Message 12

  , in reply to message 11.

  Posted by Bryan_Fontana (U5277533) on Wednesday, 5th August 2009

  //However, the truth is that those who advised Adolf the Barmy gave the concept short shrift and my view(they would be relieved to hear)is broadly in line with their opinions.//
  
  Plus, one cannot simply dismiss the weakness of the Kriegsmarine in comparison to the Royal Navy.
  
  It was not just one of many factors, it was THE crucial factor, how do you phyisically transplant hundreds of thousands of men plus their equipment, vehicles and provisions in slow moving transports (most of which were converted canal barges)across the channel in the face of a hostile and vastly superior enemy navy?
  
  Even if the Germans had gained unchallenged air supremacy, the Royal Navy would have fought to the last ship, all it would have taken is a few destroyers loose among the transport fleet and it would have been a turkey shoot.

  Link to this forum: did hitler have a long term plan for occupied Europe?

  Report message12

• Message 13

  , in reply to message 12.

  Posted by netherdutch (U5703301) on Monday, 10th August 2009

  And the use of those barges, if they could have even handled the Channel, would also have done quite a bit of damage to the German economy. Also I'm not sure what the German landing craft would have been like, but I doubt they were anything like the ones the Allies used.
  
  I think the only plausible scenario where Germany may have been able to invade Britain would have been either to attack immediately after Dunkirk with paratroopers and whatever they could get across the Channel immediately on transports or to go into a phase of long term planning and build up and train a force with specially designed landing craft and a larger German Navy. The former plan I think they still would probably lose after quite a bit of chaos and the second plan does not consider what the British preparations would have been like.

  Link to this forum: did hitler have a long term plan for occupied Europe?

  Report message13

• Message 14

  , in reply to message 12.

  Posted by TimTrack (U1730472) on Monday, 17th August 2009

  "...how do you phyisically transplant hundreds of thousands of men plus their equipment, vehicles and provisions in slow moving transports..."
  
  
  
  I think that the best estimates say that the Germans might have been able to lift something like 60,000 across the channel in 1940. Nowhere near enough for a successful invasion. That presumes that they would not have been slaughtered in the channel, which they would have been.
  
  After 1940, forget it.
  
  Does anyone understand Niko's refernece to capitulating to 'random' invaders ?

  Link to this forum: did hitler have a long term plan for occupied Europe?

  Report message14

• Message 15

  , in reply to message 14.

  Posted by Spruggles (U13892773) on Monday, 17th August 2009

  TimTrack,
  Absoulutely!
  With reference to Niko's post. Random invader ... I think he was probably intimating that we were a pushover in 1940 because of our track record against the Picts, Jutes, Saxons, Vikings, Romans and the few raids by the Dutch and the French.

  Link to this forum: did hitler have a long term plan for occupied Europe?

  Report message15

• Message 16

  , in reply to message 15.

  Posted by TimTrack (U1730472) on Tuesday, 18th August 2009

  Jutes and the like is it. Ok.
  
  I had visions of a party of day trippers setting out from Calais to Ostend but deciding to randomly invade that nice country over there. Couldn't fail, surely.

  Link to this forum: did hitler have a long term plan for occupied Europe?

  Report message16

Back to top