Did the German Popluation want Lebensraum

I read the links you provided or at least skimmed them and found that they didn't support your position. Actually if you have a reference you should give more than a link or the name of a book you should quote the relevant points and make sure it's clear just why they are relevant. Instead you have ignored most of the points I've made and continued stating your beleifs while giving links to sources that disprove your contentions.

I don't follow you around thread at all. I do happen uppon some threads where you've made comments and call them to question if I think they are questionable. In this case your argment seems to be (not all that easy to tell exactly what it is as it seems to be rather ill formed) is that the drive for lebensraum was totally or overwhelmingly due to the WWI food blockade. I pointed out that the concept was formed considerably earlier (which you ignored) and that there were other potential factors. Furthermore you made a statement that almost 1 million childred died in one year due to the blockade which I (and you for that matter) have show rather conclusivly to be incorrect. So while the blcokade surely played a part in the quest for lebensraum by the Nazi party it was certainly not the only factor and it is far from clear it was the pivotal one.

Actually I was making several. One of which is that your sources don't back up your opinion.

Not really. If you look at my last dozen posts you will find a number are on threads that you haven't posted to. On the two threads we are both posting to I believe I posted first so I'm hardly "following you around".

If you make a false statement or one that is illogical expect to be called on it. If you can't back it up with fact and logic then don't expect to be taken very seriously.

 

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Two reasons
1. The fleet woudl be surety Against non payment for raw material , esp. grain imported into Germany
2. America could be trusted to make a just long term solution. Britian & France were using starvation as leverage. Their policy backfired badly at Scapa flow.

 

You seem to be assuming that the US was in control of things at that point in time. That's rather contrary to the historical situation. Even if the US had wanted to do that I don't see why the British or the French would have agreed and there's little the US could do without their agreement.

 

They just fought the war according to regulations with intention to win and did that better than the Germans did. It was duty of German army and government to provide food for their citizens. If the war was an obstacle, it was their duty to surrender to prevent starvation. Everythig else is just plain moaning.

PS: ... and remember: LWD is a nice guy and one of the most valuable members of this commuity and I am sure you are a nice guy too. Welcome!

 

If you think that the British would have given a gift of the German fleet to the Americans then we are at an impasse because it was never going to happen. The Americans were owed and the British obligated to pay. The German fleet at Scapa was not as LWD states, within the Americans remit at any point or time. The Amercans could not do anything to get hold of that fleet and if asked would have been soundly refused. America had fought with us in ww1 as an ally they were not the close partner they are today or even after ww2. The Americans had no leverage on the British to let them have the fleet. And even if they did the cost would be taken off our debt not given in wheat to Germany. There is no sense in your argument for that particular trade.

As for a long term solution without prejudice to my American cousins, is that like pulling out of the League of Nations?

Your argument is switching from the Yanks to now the Brits and French being at fault.

Again the German fleet was never an option to being given or used as payment to the USA. Britain would never give another nation the means at that time to rival her own or endanger her own view of master of the seas. Why on earth would it? This is 1919 not 1945. A search of the forum will throw up one particular thread on the plans of war between USA and Britain before ww2 involving the fleets of both nations in general. A particularly good chanel 4 documentary broadcast this year tells the story. I only mention this because it shows both our nations had plans to thwart the other if a war ever broke out between us...Utterly impossible today maybe, but between the wars it was planned for by both nations. We were not that close as we are today. No way was any fleet going to sail to USA from the UK in any sort of loan repayment. For goodness sakes in ww2 they probably would not have gotten the British fleet if Germany ever invaded no matter the oft repeated sayings by some historians...Churchill was quite adamant on warning Mkenzie in Canada not to speak for the UK and the Royal Navy in 1940 but thats another matter. To get back to this matter especially on German fleet....It is not and never would sail to the States. Try another tack. And one that does not try to divide the two sides of the pond.

 

Just an opinion here: Lebensraum is a concept that describes a nebulous feeling of a large population. I once pointed out that in the United States we had the concept of "Manifest Destiny" which is a similar nebulous concept--much agreed to and much disagreed to by those who try to comprehend. If you listen to some, these definitions float from being a consummate evil to being a justification of the actions of a dominant population. For me and I stress "for me" these both tread down the dangerous path of justifying evils perpetrated against an innocent population. There is never a justification for this no matter how grievous any original sin may have been. No matter what religious interpretation you give it......there is still no justification for evils against the innocent population. Perhaps I would even say that is a root cause of much warfare in the world......trying to extract justice from an innocent population. It is my opinion if you then go into historical analysis these two terms must never be the object of a justification of actions since the innocent are usually the target of the resulting activity. If you cannot find the original perpetrator of the original sin you cannot extract a justice from someone else. That is the false basis of White Supremecy, Black Supremecy, Nazism and maybe more terms that are frequently hate based. You cannot pursue the perceived injustice with ex post facto actions. That is a definition of extremism that is evil. Just my opinion and just explaining how I think. I am not without faults for sure.

 

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Not - quite. the events are 92 years old,& the world has moved on, but economic blockade of non combatants after an armistice is now forbidden. Check the UN regulations.

A practise to be avoided on all boards is 'Gunga dinning', where the newbie is supposed to fetch all the data on demand. its potluck, not free buffet, folks

 

Well looking at The Avalon Project - Laws of War : Laws and Customs of War on Land (Hague II); July 29, 1899 in the section under CHAPTER V. article 37 one can make an argument that it was a general armistice and that the blockade should have ended then. On the otherhand the terms included that the bockade could continue until a peace treaty was signed. As for it now being forbidden I'd like to see those regulations. It is an act of war but an armistice doesn't end a war it just stops the fighting and not necessarily permantently. Indeed
http://qspace.library.queensu.ca/bitstream/1974/7028/3/Drew_Phillip_J-_2012-03_LLM.pdf
states:

As for:

It isn't a practice here or on any of the other boards that I'm on to do so. However it is the practice that if you are the proponent of a position you need to produce sources to back up that position when asked to do so. We are not asking you to do anything that we wouldn't expect to do ourselves.

 

+++++

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
WADR, quoting the Hague convention of 1899 is like quoting Roman empire entertainment on animal rights & cruelities in the ring- 'we've
moved on'
Try the Geneva convention Protocols, for starters, on the rights of non combatants
Geneva Conventions - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
As for:

It isn't a practice here or on any of the other boards that I'm on to do so. However it is the practice that if you are the proponent of a position you need to produce sources to back up that position when asked to do so. We are not asking you to do anything that we wouldn't expect to do ourselves.[/QUOTE]

You have been asking me to prepare executive summaries for you , ( this is called 'gunga -dinning'. )
[TABLE]
[TR]
[TD] Hi! slippy hitherao![/TD]
[TD][SIZE=-2] 15[/SIZE][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD] Water, get it! Panee lao![/TD]
[TD][SIZE=-2] [/SIZE][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD] You squidgy-nosed old idol, Gunga Din!"[/TD]
[TD][SIZE=-2] [/SIZE][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD] [/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

I prefer you read the source material.

 

Not really especially if you are talking 1918

??? That page doesn't mention blockades and says almost nothing about the "rights of non combatants". You made a claim back it up or admit you can't.

Not that I've ever heard. It is however considered on this and many other boards I frequent considered to be properly supporting your points.

That's nice. So if I list half a dozen books and a couple of dozen web pages as "supporting" my position you'll read all of them? And you are sure you'll know just what parts I think supports my position? If that's the way these boards worked you could make any inane comment you wished and list enough "sources" that no one could expect to reasonably read them all. If you have an argument support it. You know what material you think is relevant and why. List it or people are likely to conclude your opinion's aren't worth much if anything.

 

firstnorth, at this point i have to say that lwd is correct! Support your opinions with sources, and please use serious sources!!! Thank you.

 

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Not quite an effort to divide!

In 1918 America had had much smaller war losses,& could resolve the issue with less short term emotion,more long term logic.
Germany saw the fleet surrender as a 'pledge'of good faith to honor the armistice. The European Allies saw it as 'squeezing them until the the pips squeak', to quote Lloyd George,who started the phase.

Although I realise that Grain economics is an obscure science, getting postwar grain into Germany was crucial & inthe absense of gold to trade some surety was needed. The Weimar republic never really recovered from the 1918-1921 social breakdown in Germany.

 

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Then the sources I provide have to be accepted at 'face value'.

 

Nope, you don't have the time in here to earn a "face value" acceptance. Directing a fellow poster to a source without a direct quote from said source, and the quote traceable isn't the proper way to participate on this forum. By the way I was under the impression you were going to distance yourself from this thread.

 

Websters Definiton of "Face value" is
'Taking someone at face value is assuming another person's suggestion, offer, or proposal is sincere, rather than a bargaining ploy.'
If that is 'not assumed',or assumable, no discussion is 'possible',& any board dissolves into 'youtube'.

 

x2 -- addressing every point that someone brings up (especially seeing as how several are addressing everyone one of yours), would be a nice start too. And before you say "I'm picking on you", consider this: there are several popular threads each day. I read them all. This is one of the most popular. And, you are seemingly making accusations about me (not to mention that you're doing the same sort of pick-and-chose debating that is usually done when someone can't prove a point any other way) in your other thread so I feel compelled to post here. My last piece of advice is to consider the time period that the events took place in -- not the current standards, as this is revisionism. And remember, just because your sources may be valid, it doesn't mean that others' are invalid. Generally a source is used as evidence to prove a point, not to be the point itself. Take the advice or leave it, I'm just trying to help.

Anyway, enough advice. We (well, myself, anyway ) aren't trying to "pick on you". The group involved here are among the best on the forums and I know several of them personally. They are all top-notch guys. Additionally, I will be the first to compliment someone for making a good arguement -- and you can check my record if you don't believe me. So to say that we are all "out to get you" doesn't hold water. As someone with a very strong interest in WWII, I take things seriously -- I believe in intelligent, professional-style debates and that means sources and clearly defined points. I won't speak for others, but I believe a lot of them do as well.

In the past there have been new members that focused on 1 idea (the "Pearl Harbor was a trap thread" is a classic example), spewed out rhetoric, refused to post sources and didn't choose to engage all elements of someone's message. Most of them ended up being incoherent "cherry-pickers" that just sought to stir the pot. Please don't fall into this pattern (mentioning the 1919 blockade in topics it had nothing to do with -- Dutch fleet, Lebensraum -- is getting close). These are great forums, enjoy them -- I know I do.

 

In that case I at least have been taking your sources at "face value". However it's worth noteing that when I asked for a source of the almost 1 million childred dead in a month due to starvation effects the numbers in the source you gave for it suggested far fewer such losses. In other cases your offereing a source may be sincere but especially if it is a large web page or a book it leaves the question of exactly what part of it you are refering to rather up in the air especially if the reference isn't obvious. Then there is the matter of common curtusy. A lot more people read these threads than post on them. If I am making a point I shouldn't be making it to just you but to the other readers whether they are posting or not. As such if I can list a soucre and mention what part of it is relevant or even post the relevant part then I've saved many other people the effort of doing the same and either given them enough information to make a decision or whether I'm correct or not or given them pretty accurate pointers to conduct additional research.

 

Regarding the of-topic "Starvation talk": here is a snippet from the Declaration of Paris of April 16, 1856:
…
5. Blockades, in order to be binding, must be effective-that is to say, maintained by a force sufficient really to prevent access to the coast of the enemy.
…

Source: Declaration of Paris - Wikisource, the free online library

The question, however, remains in the first place: have been France and Britain in contravention of this declaration. It is doubtful, at least.

 

I thing the proposition that the blockade and resultant food shortages had an impact on the quest for lebens raim is fairly reasonable and to at least some extent on topic. The question is to what extent. IMO the proposition that it was "the reason" is very problematic.

Now whether or not it was legal or illegal is another matter and that is at least only marginally on topic in this thread. I certainly have seen nothing in the existing conventions on warfare at the time to indicate the blockade was not legal. As I mentioned earlier there is the section where Armistaces are defined that I referenced earlier where it was stated that military operations were suppose to cease in the event of an Armistace. That might be grounds for arguing that the post Armistace blockade was illegal although as I also stated since the continuance of the blockade was part of the agreement it's likely a loosing proposition. In any case I contested it because it certainly is far from clear that it was illegal as was contended. Certainly none of the sources provided definitivly support that position.

 

Indeed!

Both Weltpolitik and Lebensraum are German pre 1914 aggressive imperialist ideologies. Therefore, blockade of Germany during the Great War is poor excuse for atrocities the Nazis have committed during the annexation of Lebensraum in the WWII.