Battle of Britain

[Doppleganger]

I really have trouble with the theory that after conquroring europe they just thought Britain was going to go away.

Had Germany defeated the Soviet Union I'm afraid that Great Britain would have been in a very difficult position. I don't think we would have had any option but to come to terms with Hitler. As so-called Aryans we wouldn't have suffered the fates afforded to the Slavs and the Jews but we would have ended up as a 'puppet' satellite of the 3rd Reich.

German planning was often faulty but they got one thing right time and time again. They planned for short, sharp wars to exploit their tactical and technological edge because they knew that they lacked the manpower and natural resources to compete in a draining war of attrition. They were, of course, also influenced by their experiences in the Great War. This need for quick and decisive victories was never truer than against the Soviet Union.

 

[Ollie Garchy]

Had Germany defeated the Soviet Union I'm afraid that Great Britain would have been in a very difficult position. I don't think we would have had any option but to come to terms with Hitler. As so-called Aryans we wouldn't have suffered the fates afforded to the Slavs and the Jews but we would have ended up as a 'puppet' satellite of the 3rd Reich.

While only speculation, of course, I disagree with you Doppleganger. (Doesn't happen that often).

1. Hitler allowed his allies an incredible amount of "Bewegungsfreiheit" and independence. Italy would be a classic example. Mussolini determined his own foreign and military policy. Italy's attack on Greece and Egypt would act as strong examples. Not only that, Mussolini even pursued his own Jewish policy. This was true of all allies such as Hungary, Romania, Slovakia, Croatia, Finland, etc. Hitler seemed almost disinterested in the actions of his allies...yet another reason why Germany lost the "war".

2. Hitler oddly enough supported the British Empire. It was his model for doing things. They were pragmatic, in his eyes, and would see the value of a German-controlled east (as opposed to a communist-Slavic east). The Nazis in fact believed that it was in Britain's interests to allow Germany to crush Soviet-Russia. Hitler could not understand why Britain mobilized against Germany during the 1930s. Nor could he understand the declaration of war in September 1939. After that month, Hitler set out to punish those he held responsible...the Jews:

"If international finance Jewry in and outside Europe should succeed in once again plunging the nations into a world war, then the result will not be the victory of Jewry, but rather the annihilation of the Jewish race in Europe!" ["Reichstag speech", January 30, 1939].

Hitler did not want to step into Britain's domain: "Germany decides to go over to a clear, farseeing territorial policy. Thereby she abandons all attempts at world industry and world trade, and instead concentrates all her strength in order, through the allotment of sufficient living space for the next hundred years to our Folk, also to prescribe a path of life. Since this territory can be only in the east, the obligation to be a naval power also recedes into the background. Germany tries anew to champion her interests through the formation of a decisive power on land...This aim is equally in keeping with the highest national as well as Folkish requirements. It likewise presupposes great military power means for its execution, but does not necessarily bring Germany into conflict with all European great powers. As surely as France here will remain Germany's enemy, just as little does the nature of such a political aim contain a reason for England, and especially for Italy, to maintain the enmity of the World War".

Hitler realized that he had to appease Britain: "Hence the sober perception of British interests will be determining for English foreign policy in the future too. Whoever cuts across these interests will thereby also be England's enemy in the future. Whoever does not touch them, his existence will also not be touched by England. And whoever can be useful to her from time to time will be invited on England's side regardless of whether he had been an enemy in the past or perhaps can again become one in the future".

Hitler believed that the Jews lay behind Britain's pathological hatred of Germany: "To be sure, yet another important factor emerges in regard to England's attitude toward Germany: the decisive influence world Jewry also possesses in England. Just as surely as Anglosaxonism itself can overcome its war psychosis vis-à-vis Germany, world Jewry just as surely will neglect nothing to keep the old enmities alive so as to prevent a pacification of Europe from materialising, and thereby enable it to set its Bolshevist destructive tendencies into motion amid the confusion of a general unrest".

Hitler wanted to create a world of blocks. This point is clear in all of his speeches and writings. The US would dominate the New World. The British Empire would continue to dominate Africa and SE Asia (and Canada and Australia). Italy would dominate the Med. Germany would dominate E. Europe. Considering the propaganda, Hitler's real war aims were on the minimal side.

I am actually uncertain where the idea of physical world domination actually comes from. It was probably another product of Allied propaganda and the "Hitler Reborn" fantasies that emerged during the Nuremberg Trials and were established as "fact" by Hugh Trevor-Roper and other "scholars". [The number of journalists who wrote about Hitler and moved into academia is truly amazing].

http://www.scrapbookpages.com/Dachauscrapbook/HitlerSpeeches.html

http://www.adolfhitler.ws/lib/books/zweites/zweites.htm

 

[Doppleganger]

The British Empire would continue to dominate Africa and SE Asia (and Canada and Australia).

Hi Ollie.

We don't disagree often but when we do I take good stock of your arguments to try and understand why.

There is a lot of documentation around regarding the visit of the Soviet Foreign Minister, Vyacheslav Molotov, to Berlin in October/November 1940, to discuss a broad range of economic and political matters. At one of these meetings, Hitler brings up the subject of the British Empire and apparently offers the Soviets the chance to join the Tripartite Pact and share in the spoils of the British Empire when she is defeated. Was this a smokescreen by Hitler to divert attention away from any possible future attack on the Soviet Union? After all, military planning for Barbarossa was well under way by this time. Whatever his reasons for doing so it seems that Hitler had little intention of allowing a defeated British Empire to remain under the mastery of its former owners. In any case Molotov delayed signing, indicating that some territorial matters (Finland and the Balkans) had not been adequately resolved. It seems that the failure of the Soviets to join the Tripartite Pact pushed Hitler further towards war with them.

I agree there is no evidence of plans of world domination by Hitler. He saw a German hegemony in Europe, his allies dominating Asia and Africa and an isolated USA. But there does seem to be some evidence to suggest that a defeated British Empire was doomed and Great Britain herself would only exist as an 'ally' of the 3rd Reich.

http://www.onwar.com/articles/0008.htm
http://www.fff.org/freedom/0795b.asp

 

[perseus]

Had Germany defeated the Soviet Union I'm afraid that Great Britain would have been in a very difficult position. I don't think we would have had any option but to come to terms with Hitler. As so-called Aryans we wouldn't have suffered the fates afforded to the Slavs and the Jews but we would have ended up as a 'puppet' satellite of the 3rd Reich.

This is being discussed as if it was Germany’s decision. It has already been said that Britain was out-producing Germany in many areas, and America would probably have kept supplying military equipment irrespective of the financial situation, since it was cheaper than going to war herself. Whilst Churchill was in charge it is unlikely that Britain would have surrendered, and it is difficult to see what could in principle make Britain surrender. Similarly it is difficult to see how a British invasion of the continent would have been successful without US help and Russia diverting German resources. The superiority of Britain’s air force and navy (bolstered by American materiel) would have been countered by Germanys experienced army leading to a stalemate. With Hitler hoping to return to a peacetime footing he may have reduced German land forces with the remainder policing the vast land mass they had conquered.

It would therefore have resorted to a bombing and possibly a naval campaign, with the US waiting in the wings. The Middle East would surely have fallen to Germany, and possibly Japan would not have been able to resist Britain’s Far East possessions including India.

Looking longer term perhaps a truce may have occurred eventually, especially after the US detonated the Atom bomb (with the threat of supplying this to Britain), but the conditions would not have been dictated by either side. Britain would have remained a thorn in Germany’s side well into the 50s with nuclear bombers and short range missiles well within range of German cities, as Cuba nearly was to the United States in the 60s.

Regarding the fate of the British people if they were invaded, there would have been severe retaliation for the guerrilla warfare tactics Churchill encouraged, so I am not convinced it would have been easy.

 

[Ollie Garchy]

Hi Doppleganger & Perseus

First a proviso: These issues of the nature of WWII are important for the discussion of the Battle of Britain. No battle exists outside of larger strategic considerations, and no war is independent of even larger political perspectives.

A. Hitler & Soviet World Division:

I can raise two points in relation to Doppleganger's post. Considering Nazi anti-Bolshevik ideology and Hitler's rather strong desire for a German colonization of Russia, the negotiations with Stalin were only a ruse. That seems quite clear.

Considering Hitler's policies towards Britain, I think that the British government's commitment to the war forced him to change his mind. Hitler, while hoping for a political arrangement prior to the Battle of Britain, seemed by Winter 1940 to finally understand that his dream of an Anglo-German deal was delusional. Hitler, as I pointed out, had believed that the Bolshevik-Jewish world conspiracy might turn Britain against Germany. From his perspective, the Jews had succeeded in driving a wedge between both nations. He could not understand why Britain wanted to stop his planned war against Stalin. Nor could Hitler understand why Britain supported Poland and France. I personally believe that Hitler decided at this point to make the Jews pay...that makes me a "functionalist" and not an "intentionalist". Irregardless, you are correct in suggesting that Hitler jettisoned his romantic notion of a British-German partnership by the end of 1940.

B. A Protracted British-German War:

In relation to Perseus' post, I agree that it was Britain's decision. Whitehall decided when Hitler's actions were tolerable. They even decided when they were not. London decided when to declare war and what type of war would be fought. Britain's strategic position (as an island) offered Whitehall this luxury. Britain could rely on a "Blue Water Strategy". We have to ask ourselves how British politicians believed they could defeat Germany. It seems obvious that London required Washington for resources and the Soviet Union for manpower. It is therefore equally obvious that British policy demanded WWII. This point should not be taken lightly. We can blame Hitler for attacking Poland, invading the Soviet Union and declaring war on Washington, but it should be remembered that all of these actions were ultimately in British interests.

Therefore, how did Churchill pull off the strangest propaganda coup of all time? In 1939, London declared war on Germany. A year later, Churchill was foaming at the mouth that Britain would never surrender. Who declared war on whom? Why would Britain fight a perpetual war against Germany? For what? To hand Poland and e. Europe over to the Soviet Union? Strange stuff. But seriously, everybody has to agree that the justification for starting a war with Germany falls apart when we realize that Hitler originally wanted an accomodation with Britain. You HAVE to believe that Hitler wanted world domination and to grind the British Empire into a pulp. Otherwise, sacrificing the empire for Stalin seems rather stupid.

 

[Doppleganger]

Whilst Churchill was in charge it is unlikely that Britain would have surrendered, and it is difficult to see what could in principle make Britain surrender.

That's the thing though isn't it? If Churchhill was in charge. There is no guarantee how long he would be if Britain faced the 3rd Reich alone. Given Hitler's soft spot for the British Empire (and Ollie is right Hitler did have a lot of time for the British) and the fact that Germany (Prussia) and Britain were historical allies until quite recently, the overtures from Germany would be polite and respectful. Hadn't Rudolf Hess supposedly been tasked with securing a seperate peace with Britain on the eve of the invasion of Russia? Churchill was very much a wartime leader. Faced with a very powerful neighbour who had no real malice to wage war with them (and who lacked the practical means to wage it anyway) how long before someone like Lord Halifax ousted Churchill and took over? Why would the British people want to continue the war against Germany anyway? The reasons why Britain declared war on Germany were far from convincing in the first place. With hindsight we can justify that it was an entirely correct action given the appalling actions of the Nazis against the Jews and Slavs but at the time Poland was quite a flimsy reason to go to war.

 

[Ollie Garchy]

The reasons why Britain declared war on Germany were far from convincing in the first place. With hindsight we can justify that it was an entirely correct action given the appalling actions of the Nazis against the Jews and Slavs but at the time Poland was quite a flimsy reason to go to war.

Was it a correct decision? I don't want to keep beating this rather dead horse, but Stalin's hordes did kill more people than Hitler's hordes. While this type of argument basically leads nowhere, and all sorts of people (including myself) start getting knots in the stomach, was the decision to substitute Hitler's Lebensraum with Stalin's worker's paradise a good decision for eastern Europe? Hungary and other countries got smoked. What is the difference, say, between the extirmination of Russia and the extirmination of Prussia? How can someone argue that it was morally right to support a Slavic ethnic cleansing program whereas it would have been immoral to support Hitler's program? This stuff confuses me. The normal line of argumentation justifies all of the Allied decisions and actions according to the genesis of WWII. That is, Hitler is responsible for everything because he invaded Poland...and then we circle back to my earlier points that Poland was only a pretext used by the British and French to wage a war that most politicians (other than Churchill) did not even want to fight. If they did, they did not really know what to do or how to win.

What is my point? Well, in terms of the Battle of Britain, not all that much. In terms of WWII history, the orthodox opinions are bizarre and have to be rethought.

 

[LeEnfield]

Ollie...You state that Stalins hordes killed more than the German hordes,so did the Russians kill over 20 million people in Germany than the Germans killed in Russia. Now Britain had Treaties with Poland about there defence and Independence, so we come down to the questions should treaties be honoured or ignored when they don't suit us. Hitler was pushing all the time and had been allowed to get away with a lot before Britain and France decided enough was enough

 

[Ollie Garchy]

Ollie...You state that Stalins hordes killed more than the German hordes,so did the Russians kill over 20 million people in Germany than the Germans killed in Russia. Now Britain had Treaties with Poland about there defence and Independence, so we come down to the questions should treaties be honoured or ignored when they don't suit us. Hitler was pushing all the time and had been allowed to get away with a lot before Britain and France decided enough was enough

1. The Soviets killed their own people. The 20 or 30 or 40 million statistic (for a comparison) is meaningless because Stalin's boys were busy killing their own people during the war. The war, for example, masked the Russian suppression of Ukrainians, etc. Attributing these losses to the Germans, as is often done, is wrong.

2. The number of murdered civilians attributed to Hitler's Reich (Simon Wiesenthal, etc.) is around 10-12 million. The number of murdered civilians attributed to Stalin's regime (The Black Book, etc.) is between 20 and 70 million.

3. Russia invaded Poland on 17 September 1939. Hitler and Stalin had divided Poland in August of that year. If the treaty with Poland counted, then why no declaration of war against Stalin. We have discussed this though.

4. Prussia was extirminated. Period.

 

[Doppleganger]

Ollie...You state that Stalins hordes killed more than the German hordes,so did the Russians kill over 20 million people in Germany than the Germans killed in Russia. Now Britain had Treaties with Poland about there defence and Independence, so we come down to the questions should treaties be honoured or ignored when they don't suit us. Hitler was pushing all the time and had been allowed to get away with a lot before Britain and France decided enough was enough

While there is no consensus for the number of civilians murdered by Stalin, one upper end figure is about 43 million Soviet citizens and foreigners. This is far in advance of any numbers killed by the 3rd Reich. Many of the civilian deaths attributed to the German Armies occupying the Soviet Union were due to indirect factors such as starvation, displacement and disease rather than direct action by German soldiers. Both armies were brutal towards each others civilian populations but the fact remains that Stalin killed FAR more of his own countrymen than Hitler did.

http://catallarchy.net/blog/archives/2006/05/01/how-many-did-stalin-really-murder/

Poland was a country ressurected from a grave to give displaced ethnic peoples their own nation again. It is similar to the creation of Israel in some ways. One of the big sacrifices the Germans suffered for losing 2 major wars is that Prussia was given to the Poles. Initially West Prussia after the Great War and then East Prussia after WW2. It is like the UK having Scotland removed or the US having Texas, Arizona, California and New Mexico removed. In other words a big deal. It suited all the other Great Powers for this to happen but in essence it was an immoral act.

 

[Ollie Garchy]

While there is no consensus for the number of civilians murdered by Stalin, one upper end figure is about 43 million Soviet citizens and foreigners.

Excellent article, Doppleganger. While only a blurb on the guy's book, it is short, crisp and to the point.