Welcome to the WWII Forums! Log in or Sign up to interact with the community.

Proposed peace conditions in 1940?

Discussion in 'Western Europe 1939 - 1942' started by OhneGewehr, Sep 16, 2016.

  1. OhneGewehr

    OhneGewehr New Member

    Joined:
    May 30, 2016
    Messages:
    411
    Likes Received:
    28
    Location:
    Germany
    You know what i think?
    Hitler considered his offer as "very generous". No fleet, no money, no colonies . do your business (empire), i'll do mine (continental europe). He demanded nothing what he hadn't achieved, even less (Poland). And that is the difference between him and Mussolini who was a vulture.

    The treaty of Versailles was regarded almost as a crime by nearly the entire german population, humiliating, unfair, blaming Germany alone for the war, divergent from what was negotiated before...
     
    Tamino likes this.
  2. Tamino

    Tamino Doc - The Deplorable

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2011
    Messages:
    2,503
    Likes Received:
    291
    Location:
    Untersteiermark
    ... and not only by the Germans. Ich bin auch dabei.
     
  3. Takao

    Takao Ace

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2010
    Messages:
    7,297
    Likes Received:
    1,465
    Location:
    Reading, PA
    Hitler thought his "offer" was generous, but really it was not.

    No fleet - Makes sense, for how would Germany provide the necessary fuel for this new fleet, outside of what remained of captured French stocks. Further, it would have required a deep drain on manpower to replace all the French sailors with German ones, not to mention all the retraining required to use French equipment.

    No money - Don't make me laugh! Germany was greatly overcharging France's occupational tribute...Only about 45% of France tribute went to her occupation, the other 55% went into German coffers.

    No colonies - You see, the thing about Germany losing all her colonies in WW1, was that, for the large part, they had all been occupied by her enemies. How many French colonies did Germany successfully conquer? For, the most part, there were several that Germany had no hopes of conquering.

    There is no difference between Hitler & Mussolini...They were both to greedy for their own good.

    Versailles - Oh, that's right! Germany was not defeated, but stabbed in the back by the politicians.
     
  4. belasar

    belasar Court Jester Staff Member Patron  

    Joined:
    May 9, 2010
    Messages:
    7,876
    Likes Received:
    966
    To quote Yoda,

    That is why you fail.
     
  5. steverodgers801

    steverodgers801 Member

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2011
    Messages:
    1,661
    Likes Received:
    67
    OHNE, Versailles was minor compared to the Brest Litovsk treaty, which was the example for the treaty
     
  6. Tamino

    Tamino Doc - The Deplorable

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2011
    Messages:
    2,503
    Likes Received:
    291
    Location:
    Untersteiermark
    Indeed. But combined with Potstdam it was a crippling blow. Pure devastation worse than a large scale nuclear attack.
     
  7. green slime

    green slime Member Patron  

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2010
    Messages:
    3,091
    Likes Received:
    543
    It was actually worse than that:

    The daily amount due for the occupation forces was set to 20 million marks. This is enough to pay for an occupation army of roughly 18 million men. (1 RM per day for the average grunt). Not sure exactly how many Germans were in France, but I doubt there were even 9 million... The franc was then pegged to the mark at a rate (20 francs to 1 mark) which overvalued the mark by 50-60%. So 400 million Francs. Per day.

    Further, the clearing treaty subsequently forced upon France, meant the Germans and French each had to pay their own exporters, then clear the trade debts nationally. French importers would pay Francs into a clearing account, and German importers would pay in marks. From this account, each government would then pay their exporters. But since France was required to export far more than she imported, the account became massively out of balance. To pay French exporters, the account had to borrow francs from the Bank of France. What this effectively meant, was that all the exports to Germany were financed by France.

    Source France: The Dark Years, 1940-1944 by Julian Jackson

    80 percent of the value of the food production of France was taken: 50% of the meat, 80% of the Champagne (naturally). This when farm production plummeted due to lack of labour (1,5 million Frenchmen were still incarcerated) and a lack of fuel. France went hungry to fed Germany. Not the widespread starvation of Poland or Greece, but still.
     
  8. LJAd

    LJAd Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2009
    Messages:
    4,997
    Likes Received:
    235
    Because he entered the war : that should be obvious .You can't expect Mussolini to enter the war and to claim nothing .
     
  9. LJAd

    LJAd Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2009
    Messages:
    4,997
    Likes Received:
    235
    As Germany started the war intentionally, the blame was justified.
     
  10. LJAd

    LJAd Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2009
    Messages:
    4,997
    Likes Received:
    235
    There was nothing wrong with the Italian DoW on France : it was the same as the Soviet DoW on Japan in august 1945 . Both Mussolini and Stalin waited til France and Japan were defeated, which is something very intelligent . And those who talk about vultures don't know reality and talk as schoolboys ? Vultures are very useful animals .
     
  11. steverodgers801

    steverodgers801 Member

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2011
    Messages:
    1,661
    Likes Received:
    67
    FRance was just as eager for the WW1 as Germany, they wanted Alsace Lorraine back
     
  12. LJAd

    LJAd Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2009
    Messages:
    4,997
    Likes Received:
    235
    This is not correct : at the 1914 elections the nationalists were crushed and Jaurès was ruling : Jaurès admired Germany, was anti Russia, was an enemy of the army ,Jaurès wanted peace .
     
  13. OhneGewehr

    OhneGewehr New Member

    Joined:
    May 30, 2016
    Messages:
    411
    Likes Received:
    28
    Location:
    Germany
    I agree. Mussolini's DoW was the beginning of his end and mediocre vultures like Badoglio could become what otherwise would be impossible. It was an intelligent move for the Allies, cause Italy only caused trouble during the war for the Axis. As a threat, always alongside Germany but not active, Mussolini would have been useful, but when he declared war, everyone could soon recognize that his army was a joke.

    All show but no trousers either - is this the correct expression?
     
  14. LJAd

    LJAd Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2009
    Messages:
    4,997
    Likes Received:
    235
    You don't get it : in september 1939 , Italy remained neutral, because there was no indication that Germany could win, in june 1940 Italy joined Germany because most people (also outside Italy ) were convinced that Germany had won ,it was an intelligent move,the problem was that Germany did not win, 3 years later, when it was obvious that Germany was losing, Italy abandoned Germany; an other intelligent move .

    Germany should be the last to complain about the attitude of Italy : in 1812 Napoleon invaded Russia with an army that was in majority not French: the German states gave him 81000 men , a few months later, when it was clear that he had failed, the German states abandoned him .

    You also fail to see what would have been the situation for Germany if Italy had remained neutral : Britain could use the Mediterranean, it could at will invade the Southern belly of Europe which would have caused big problems for the Germans who would be busy in the east .

    Saying that the Italian forces were only a joke is proving that one is looking to much to Allo Allo : til the Invasion of Sicily, the Italians did reasonably well : they fought 3 years in NA and they did not that bad in Russia . They continued the war in Ethiopia til september 1943 . But the Germans needed them as a scape-goat and they succeeded : til today people are believing the lies of the German generals .
     
  15. belasar

    belasar Court Jester Staff Member Patron  

    Joined:
    May 9, 2010
    Messages:
    7,876
    Likes Received:
    966
    Normally I would ask if you are kidding, but I know you too well for that.

    Let's see. Invasion of Southern France stalls as soon as it hit's France's Alpine Line. The Corpo Aereo Italiano (IL Duce's contribution to the Battle of Britain that hardly anyone knows occurred) is so feeble that a week after their first operational sortie is so pathetic that it takes Time magazine a week to speculate that they are even there. This is understandable since over some 4 months they fly less than 100 bomber sorties, not a hundred missions mind you, just less than 100 aircraft flying to targets over England.

    Then there is Egypt (does the mercy rule apply already?). After a timid advance into British territory Operation Compass, intended merely as a extended raid, rout's the Italian 10th Army, capturing over a 100,000 prisoner's and chases Italian forces 500 miles back into Libya. Whereupon IL Duce must go hat in hand to Germany for aid to avoid a complete debacle. Italy is just 6 months into WW II and is more like a zombie shackled to Germany than the corpse the Austro-Hungarian's were in the Great War. (at least you can drag a corpse, a zombie tends to wander off in directions you don't want them to go)

    The only bright spot, East Africa was sound and fury, signifying nothing. It was doomed from the start and simply threw away assets better used elsewhere, a consistent theme of all Italian military operations.

    Now the absurdity of the Greek invasion. Italy gets thrown back by a 5th rate isolated power and again needs to be bailed out by Berlin.

    It only goes downhill from here.
     
    green slime likes this.
  16. LJAd

    LJAd Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2009
    Messages:
    4,997
    Likes Received:
    235
    1) Invasion of Southern France : this is an own-goal as 4 years later, the Allied forces were also not able to invade Italia via the Alps: thus if you blame the Italians for their failure in 1940, you must also blame the Allies for their failure in 1944 .

    2 ) NA : The Italians were defeated by superior British forces in the winter of 40/41, as the BEF was defeated by superior German forces in may/june 1940.Notwithstanding this, the Italians succeeded into stopping the British advance BEFORE the arrival of the Germans .


    For East Africa : here also there were only small Italian forces who continued the fighting till september 1943 . A lot of fuss has been made about von Lettow-Vorbeck who continued the fighting in East Africa til after 11 november 1918,the Italians did the same .


    3 - For Greece : it is the same as for Southern France : 4 years later, the British and the Greec did not better than the Italians .


    And, for NA : without the intervention of the Italian army, navy, airforce and merchant fleet, the Germans would not have lasted a week in NA . The same for Crete : without the intervention of the Italians, operation Mercurius would have failed .

    Without the Italians, the British would have landen in 1940/1941 in Southern Europe .
     
  17. RichTO90

    RichTO90 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2015
    Messages:
    1,445
    Likes Received:
    466
    More silliness.

    False analogy:
    1) The Allied forces never intended to invade Italia via the Alps. The Italians did intend to invade France via the Alps.

    Logical fail on your part.

    Analysis from poor data.
    2) No, the British were not superior in the winter of 40/41. In the immediate battle area the Italians exceeded British manpower strength (62,000 vs. 36,000) and artillery (510 vs. 484). They were over-matched in battle tanks (55 vs. 142), but had 220 to the 173 British light tanks, and aircraft (290 vs. 467). The Italians also were in prepared positions and in theory had substantial reserves available - another 43,000 men, 1,001 artillery, and 37 battle tanks. Their true inferiority was logistics, but OTOH the British committed more than they could support as well.

    Let's see, in Italian East Africa there were some 112,000 mobilized Metropolitan and 258,000 colonial troops by the time the British attacked...with 98,000 mostly colonial forces. The Italians had 24 medium and 39 light tanks, the British none initially and later 14 I and 2 light tanks. The Italians had 848 artillery pieces, the British eventually a mixed bag of about 100 elderly pieces. Who won?

    Sketchy analysis from limited data on your part.

    Poor analogy again. Two strikes at the same pitch.
    3) The British never intended to do anything more than follow up the withdrawal of HG-E and F.

    Logical fail for the second time.

    Yet another logical fail. Without the Italian intervention, then the Germans would not have been in NA. Yet another logical fail. In Crete, the Italian contribution to the outcome was non-existent.

    BTW, it is MERKUR, Mercurius is Latin, not German.

    I doubt the British would have been so stupid. Without the Italians, the only British landings in "Southern Europe" could have been Southern France, Yugoslavia, or Greece. Landing in Southern France likely would have involved Vichy France committing to the Axis. A landing in Yugoslavia or Greece would have been as disastrous as historically, so I am unsure what you think you are proving.

    It seems yet another logical fail on your part.
     
  18. LJAd

    LJAd Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2009
    Messages:
    4,997
    Likes Received:
    235
    About the Alps : not correct .The Italians failed in june 1940 mostly because of the geographical difficulties = the Alps . 4 years later, the Allies decided not to invade Italy through the Alps,because they knew it could not be done . If it could be done, the Allies would have done it .
     
  19. LJAd

    LJAd Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2009
    Messages:
    4,997
    Likes Received:
    235
    About Crete : wrong, totally : without the Italians,the invasion could not happen : most German and Italian forces were going to Crete by boat,the airborne units were only a minority .
     
  20. LJAd

    LJAd Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2009
    Messages:
    4,997
    Likes Received:
    235
    About East Africa : it is wrong to use the Wiki figures : these are ration strength figures including naval, airforce, and non combat personnel : no one would use Wehrmachtsgefolge, OT , SS , police, KM and LW personnel to calculate the German strength in France before D Day . No one would use figures of the Home Guard to calculate British strength in the UK in september 1940, no one would use Volkssturm figures to calculate German strength in january 1945 . If one uses the Wiki figures about East Africa, one must include on British side all personnel in Kenya, Sudan, and even Nigeria, as Nigerian units also were fighting in Ethiopia .
     

Share This Page