Why did Hitler Invade so many Countries so Fast?

indioblack

Tony EH wrote: »

For a more in depth view, you should read Clay Blair's 'Hitler's U-Boat War'.

For me, it's the last word on the whole U-Boat campaign. It's split over two volumes. It does a lot to break down a number of persistent myths that are still prevalent today.

Thanks, just found it on Amazon.

blatantrereg

He was high on power (and amphetamines).

For someone who referred to his empire as the third reich, you'd think he would pay more attention to the leaders of the first and second reichs. Otto von Bismarck responded to calls for a pre-emptive war with Russia with the comment "Starting a pre-emptive war is like committing suicide for fear of death". I think it was either he or Frederick the Great who explicitly stated that Russia was not feasible to invade because of its size and its winters.

Canvasser

blatantrereg wrote: »

He was high on power (and amphetamines).

For someone who referred to his empire as the third reich, you'd think he would pay more attention to the leaders of the first and second reichs. Otto von Bismarck responded to calls for a pre-emptive war with Russia with the comment "Starting a pre-emptive war is like committing suicide for fear of death". I think it was either he or Frederick the Great who explicitly stated that Russia was not feasible to invade because of its size and its winters.

Bismarck was ruthless but he was also a master of diplomacy and geo-politics. Hitler thought he was a master of diplomacy for what he got away with in the 30s and in particular the Munich Agreement. However the fact he ended up at war with the British Empire, The Soviet Union and the USA all at once proves how badly he failed.

Tony EH

HavingCrack wrote: »

...in 1940 and 1941 he usually only had 28-30 active at any one time and this declined thereafter.

I would have said a lot less. In fact, I recall a stat that stated that the average number of U-boats at sea hovered around 15 for much of that period.

Hitler simply never gave the German Navy the resources it needed to achieve its aims.[/QUOTE]

Hitler just didn't understand or really cared that much about the Kriegsmarine and like the majority of Germany's concerns, left it in the hands of people he believed were capable of carrying out the job independently of himself.

His obsession with Russia led largely to him blanking off many other things. Hitler contented himself with micromanaging the land war and for the majority of the wars course, that was focused on Russia.

jonniebgood1

golden lane wrote: »

the german armies in the west......could not be sent east.......

the bombing of germany kept thousands of soldiers at home......so those guns could not be used in the east....

i believe about 80% of all german casualties were on the eastern front.....

.08% of the allied armies.....actually fired a gun at an enemy they could see.......

the cream of the german army was defeated in normandy..........

the 25 german divisions that were destroyed by the russians in july 1944.....were mostly horsedrawn divisions.....

You seem to be forgetting that until June 1944 there was no western front. By the time of operation overlord the outcome of the war was already decided, it was just a matter of time. Also the large number of horsedrawn divisions in July 1944 would have been a result of the previous years battles notably around Kursk.

ShaneScouse

golden lane wrote: »

the german armies in the west......could not be sent east.......
the bombing of germany kept thousands of soldiers at home......so those guns could not be used in the east....
i believe about 80% of all german casualties were on the eastern front.....
.08% of the allied armies.....actually fired a gun at an enemy they could see.......
the cream of the german army was defeated in normandy..........
the 25 german divisions that were destroyed by the russians in july 1944.....were mostly horsedrawn divisions.....

Sorry only saw this reply now, but I'm not sure I should even bother :P
The 'cream of the german army' statement is a massive reach, and to throw aside 25 divisions some of which were veteran lads been in the sh1t since the start of the war as just some horsedrawn mickeymouse stuff noone should really heed is also a crazy statement to make(that and the reason they were horsedrawn is again due to events on the eastern front, I can assure you they had lost most of the armour)
That and you seem to agree that the Eastern front is what cost and decided the war for germany as 80% of deaths there, but then say it wasnt a big deal and normandy was the real turning point?

Im confused that and your use of periods.

Canvasser

golden lane wrote: »

the german armies in the west......could not be sent east.......

the bombing of germany kept thousands of soldiers at home......so those guns could not be used in the east....

i believe about 80% of all german casualties were on the eastern front.....

.08% of the allied armies.....actually fired a gun at an enemy they could see.......

the cream of the german army was defeated in normandy..........

the 25 german divisions that were destroyed by the russians in july 1944.....were mostly horsedrawn divisions.....

You're having a laugh there. While the Germans did have some good divisions in Normandy it's a huge stretch to call them the "cream". There were certainly no better than most divisions on the eastern front. Also the Germans relied on old men and boys in Normandy many of whom were armed with old Polish rifles captured 5 years earlier.

Is this what you call the cream of the German Army?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_716th_Static_Infantry_Division

blatantrereg

Dispossessing and enslaving/killing a huge chunk of his population would have helped initial rapid expansion too I guess.

Capt'n Midnight

indioblack wrote: »

Fair summary.
Hitler diverting some of his forces into Greece in 1941 led to a postponing of Barbarossa for some weeks. Would be interested to know if people consider this significant.
Worth pointing out that British forces would be confined to their island if they had no ships or planes.

Wasn't the delay more to do with waiting for airfields to dry out / waiting for river levels to drop ?

The loss of the forces though didn't help.

Capt'n Midnight

Canvasser wrote: »

The German Army captured 70,000 French military trucks in 1940 and confiscated lots of French, Belgian and Dutch civilian vechicles meaning that they had a large number of motorised troops for the campaign in Moscow. Without these trucks the blitzkrieg in Russia could not have worked as the tanks would have been too isolated. 75% of nazi troops still had no motor transport though.

People forget about Czechoslovakia.

Much of the Atlantic Wall was armed with the guns taken from the 10,000 pill boxes in the Sudaten Land. Large numbers of tanks and trucks and factories were used.

People say the UK and France weren't war ready, but adding in Poland and Czechoslakia would be a different story.

Divide and conquer was more effective than blitzkrieg.

blatantrereg

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

People forget about Czechoslovakia.

Much of the Atlantic Wall was armed with the guns taken from the 10,000 pill boxes in the Sudaten Land. Large numbers of tanks and trucks and factories were used.

People say the UK and France weren't war ready, but adding in Poland and Czechoslakia would be a different story.

Divide and conquer was more effective than blitzkrieg.

Dont know about divide and conquer tactics. Czechoslovakia was not an ally of the UK and France, and they accepted the pretext he gave for invading it. Churchill correctly perceived him as a dangerous empire builder very early, but he didn't get much credit or recognition for that view before it was proven correct.

Poland was an ally of the UK and France before the war started, and of course attacking them resulted in the start of WW2. He didn't want to be at war with the UK at all at that stage, especially since they were such a strong naval power. While Churchill was quick to recognise Hitler for what he was, Hitler failed to recognise Churchill, and even didn't bother coming to an appointment to meet him during a diplomatic visit before Churchill became the PM, dismissing him as unimportant.

Germany's geographical position was strategically bad because it was open to having to fight on multiple fronts - which was precisely what Hitler ended up having to do. His attacking the USSR might have been his single justifiable action - he correctly saw them as an aggressive threat to the West - but it was also an incredibly foolish one from a military perspective. It is kind of interesting that this sort of thing demonstrated an eminent failure to learn from his wiser predecessors (as I referred to above), while Churchill researched history a great deal and produced long works on the subject of his own.

Canvasser

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

People forget about Czechoslovakia.

Much of the Atlantic Wall was armed with the guns taken from the 10,000 pill boxes in the Sudaten Land. Large numbers of tanks and trucks and factories were used.

People say the UK and France weren't war ready, but adding in Poland and Czechoslakia would be a different story.

Divide and conquer was more effective than blitzkrieg.

Very True. Czechslovakia had a powerful army, good tanks and an excellent defensive line of of machine guns and pillboxes. This is why the Munich Agreement was so pathetic. Not only did the British and French sell out their ally to the nazis, they allowed the Germans to capture vital military equipment and industry. Many Czech tanks would be used against the French and British in 1940. The British and French sellout at Munich also isolated the Soviets and led them to signing their own separate peace treat with the nazis. Many contemporay and right wing "historians" have tried to play down the importance of the sellout at Munich and instead shift the blame for the war onto the Soviet Union for signing the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact but it was Chamberlain and the British Tory Party who gave Hitler the green light for war.

blatantrereg wrote: »

Dont know about divide and conquer tactics. Czechoslovakia was not an ally of the UK and France, and they accepted the pretext he gave for invading it. Churchill correctly perceived him as a dangerous empire builder very early, but he didn't get much credit or recognition for that view before it was proven correct.

Poland was an ally of the UK and France before the war started, and of course attacking them resulted in the start of WW2. He didn't want to be at war with the UK at all at that stage, especially since they were such a strong naval power. While Churchill was quick to recognise Hitler for what he was, Hitler failed to recognise Churchill, and even didn't bother coming to an appointment to meet him during a diplomatic visit before Churchill became the PM, dismissing him as unimportant.

Germany's geographical position was strategically bad because it was open to having to fight on multiple fronts - which was precisely what Hitler ended up having to do. His attacking the USSR might have been his single justifiable action - he correctly saw them as an aggressive threat to the West - but it was also an incredibly foolish one from a military perspective. It is kind of interesting that this sort of thing demonstrated an eminent failure to learn from his wiser predecessors (as I referred to above), while Churchill researched history a great deal and produced long works on the subject of his own.

The Czechs were loyal allies of the French for many years and had a military alliance with them. However the French would not send military aid to the Czechs without British agreement and this was impossible as the British Tory Party of the day was full of nazi sympathisers.

Capt'n Midnight

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Czechoslovak_border_fortifications

The total planned (and nearly all mostly completed) was 10,014 light pillboxes and 264 heavy bunkhouses (small forts).[1]
...
After the German occupation of Czechoslovakia border regions as a result of the "Sudeten crisis", the Germans used these objects to test and develop new weapons and tactics, plan, and practise the attacks eventually used against the Maginot Line[2] and Belgium's forts (the most notable is Fort Eben-Emael), resulting in astounding success. After the fall of Belgium, France and the low countries, the Germans began to dismantle the "Beneš Wall", blowing up the cupolas, or removing them and the cannon/MG embrasures, some of which were eventually installed in the Atlantic Wall against the Allies.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tanks_in_the_German_Army

A major boost to German armour came with the acquisition of Czechoslovakia in 1938, giving the entire Czech arms industry to Germany. The Czechs already had two main tank designs, the Skoda LT35 and the Cesko-moravska Kolben Danek (CKD) TNHP. The Skoda was a 10 ton machine with a 37 mm main gun and excellent cross-country capabilities; the CKD was 8.5 tons and also fitted with a 37 mm gun - due to extensive tests it was an extremely reliable machine with a top quality chassis. Both were taken into the German panzer forces, as the PzKpfw 35(t) and the PzKpfw 38(t), and further production was ordered. CKD was renamed Böhmisch-Mährische Maschinenfabrik AG (BMM) in 1940 and continued production until 1942, providing the Wehrmacht with 1,168 PzKpfw 38(t)'s. In 1940 Czech tanks made up around a quarter of the entire German panzer force.

blatantrereg

Canvasser wrote: »

The Czechs were loyal allies of the French for many years and had a military alliance with them. However the French would not send military aid to the Czechs without British agreement and this was impossible as the British Tory Party of the day was full of nazi sympathisers.

Can you give a source for that? There's no mention of a French alliance being in existence at the time of their invasion in the wikipedia article about it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_occupation_of_Czechoslovakia

Canvasser

blatantrereg wrote: »

Can you give a source for that? There's no mention of a French alliance being in existence at the time of their invasion in the wikipedia article about it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_occupation_of_Czechoslovakia

http://mr_sedivy.tripod.com/eur_4.html

HavingCrack

blatantrereg wrote: »

Can you give a source for that? There's no mention of a French alliance being in existence at the time of their invasion in the wikipedia article about it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_occupation_of_Czechoslovakia

I know Hitler personally referred to Czechoslovakia as a "French aircraft carrier in the centre of Europe" so there must have been some form of alliance.

Benny_Cake

Canvasser wrote: »

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

People forget about Czechoslovakia.

Much of the Atlantic Wall was armed with the guns taken from the 10,000 pill boxes in the Sudaten Land. Large numbers of tanks and trucks and factories were used.

People say the UK and France weren't war ready, but adding in Poland and Czechoslakia would be a different story.

Divide and conquer was more effective than blitzkrieg.

Very True. Czechslovakia had a powerful army, good tanks and an excellent defensive line of of machine guns and pillboxes. This is why the Munich Agreement was so pathetic. Not only did the British and French sell out their ally to the nazis, they allowed the Germans to capture vital military equipment and industry. Many Czech tanks would be used against the French and British in 1940. The British and French sellout at Munich also isolated the Soviets and led them to signing their own separate peace treat with the nazis. Many contemporay and right wing "historians" have tried to play down the importance of the sellout at Munich and instead shift the blame for the war onto the Soviet Union for signing the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact but it was Chamberlain and the British Tory Party who gave Hitler the green light for war.

I was reading William Shirer's Berlin Diary recently and his sense of disbelief at the betrayal of Czechoslovakia was palpable. In 1938 Czechoslovakia was the last democracy in central Europe with a well-equipped army and excellent border defences. Wehrmacht generals were very worried about the prospect of a war at that point and had Britain and France held firm it could have possibly led to a coup against Hitler.

johnwest288

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2208860/Top-secret-dossier-uncovered-containing-detailed-maps-postcards-Hitlers-plan-invade-neutral-Ireland.html

Jawgap

johnwest288 wrote: »

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2208860/Top-secret-dossier-uncovered-containing-detailed-maps-postcards-Hitlers-plan-invade-neutral-Ireland.html

The plans are fairly well known about - I think there's a copy of some OKW planning documents in the Military Archives, although I don't think they have this particular dossier.

Never could have happened anyway - the Germans lacked the capacity to mount the type of amphibious operation that would have been required, and to sustain an army (even a modestly sized one) so far away from the Continent. Combine that with the fact that the RAF would have had total air supremacy and it would not have ended well. It's arguable they would have lost the whole force as evacuation would have been tremendously difficult.

The RAF were under orders to attack any potential invasion shipping approaching the Irish coast. The joint planning undertaken by the Irish and British forces envisaged an expeditionary air force being established in Belfast that would go straight into action against any invading forces - British land forces were to wait 48 hours and then only move South when invited to do so by the Irish Government.

On the original question, Hitler wanted lebensraum - to compete with the British Empire and the Americans he recognised he needed a larger and broader economic base and the 'natural' place to find it was on the Continent. In the mid to late 1930s, German per capita income was about the same as Ireland's - increasing it would mean expanding the economy which in his view meant conquering territory and subjugating populations to the service of the Reich.

That, combined with the fact he was a reckless gambler and his sense of pre-destiny, led him to acquire territory - the policy of appeasement, didn't do a whole lot to discourage him either!