Naval History Forums

I know it seems laughable, or even repulsive on so many levels, to say nothing of just being plain wrong.

Still and all. there are people that contend Hitler was a British Agent...


Any thoughts???

http://www.redicecreations.com/specialr ... agent.html

laugh out loud (LOL)!

However, there are some serious thoughts put forward, not without some merit, that Martin Borman may have been a Soviet agent.

LOL
If Hitler was a British agent, than it was the most unsuccessful operation of an Intelligence Service ever.
Regards
Ede

Turning it around; it could be said that Chamberlain was an unwitting agent of Hitler and Goering at Munich.

There is no evidence that Chamberlain was such an agent or traitor as the supposition implies.

One factor is that is very easily overlooked was that British rearmament was only kicking in by 1938. Britain was far more ready for war by 1939, even if the ''phoney war'' suggested otherwise.

I am surprised however that no one has come up with the far more obvious and logical proposition - that Hitler was a Soviet agent. Just look at the position he left Europe in 1945..... without Hitler Stalin wouldn't have had the whole of eastern Europe in his thrall, not to mention the much tighter grip on the USSR itself through the liquidation of all the anti-communist factions and forces who had backed/collaborated with Hitler.

steffen19k wrote: Any thoughts???
http://www.redicecreations.com/specialr ... agent.html

The first article is completely factually incorrect - Hitler never ever set foot in Britain. He only visited France twice, once in June 1940 and then later in that year he went to Hendaye to see Franco. He only ever went into Italy twice to see Mussolini and visited Finland once, at the time of the Battle of Midway, to see Marshall Mannerheim and narrowly avoided being in an air crash on getting there. Apart from that Hitler never left Austria or Germany or the conquered areas of eastern Europe.

The second article about Hitler being part Jewish is far more realistic and would explain why Herr Schnickelgruber was so keen to conceal his family history.

RF wrote:There is no evidence that Chamberlain was such an agent or traitor as the supposition implies.
..

I didn't mean to imply that at all. I'm only pointing out that his appeasment at any cost policies certainly played into Hitlers hands. There was a possibility that the anti-Hitler German generals lead by Beck could have got rid of the Nazis at that point, but they needed Britain and France to hold firm for a legimate pre-text to arrest the Nazi leadership.

Actually the Czech Army and its fortifications were strong enough (in my opinion) to hold off and beat the Germans on their own, without any help from Beck....after all the Czechs had enough tanks to equip three completely new panzer divisions in 1939, doubling the number of panzer units.

It is unfortunate that Benes didn't go it alone after the Munich sell out and call Hitlers' bluff; unfortunately the German propaganda about Germanys' exagerrated military strength at the time had been believed and they decided they couldn't fight.

Yes, the appeasement policies played into Hitlers' hands - yet long term he failed to make the best out of it. A more savvy Fuhrer after Munich would have tried to get his way on Poland without seizing the rump Czech state and in so doing violating the Munich agreement. Another Munich settlement over Poland and the Fuhrer is free to tackle the Soviet Union, with full (but secret) support of the British, French and everybody else who wanted rid of communism... then you clear up the unfinished business over the Czech state et cetera....

RF wrote:Actually the Czech Army and its fortifications were strong enough (in my opinion) to hold off and beat the Germans on their own, without any help from Beck....after all the Czechs had enough tanks to equip three completely new panzer divisions in 1939, doubling the number of panzer units.

It is unfortunate that Benes didn't go it alone after the Munich sell out and call Hitlers' bluff; unfortunately the German propaganda about Germanys' exagerrated military strength at the time had been believed and they decided they couldn't fight.

I agree the Czechs should have fought, but I do not credit them with any chances of winning. Even with tanks and fortifications, the Czechs could only have held out for a limited time. The point of fighting would have been that it would have made German aggression blatant, and demonstrated beyond doubt the unwillingness of Czechoslovakia to be absorbed, and possibly drawn in support of other nations once hostilities had started and war was apparent. It might seem cynical, but to paraphrase Mussolini, you need a couple of thousand dead to make the political point, in the same sense it would have been better for the Balts to fight the Soviets in 1940 instead of just giving in to demands, even if they had no chance whatsoever of winning.

I'm not sure the Czechs could have held out for long without help from France and Britain. As I understand it the Nazis had cut or coerced secret deals with the Hungarians and the Poles leaving the Czech's isolated.

We shall never kinow.

Walther Warlimont has recorded that in October 1938 when Hitler visited and inspected the Czech border fortifications, he was impressed and told his generals that he now understood why they had urged caution on an attack on Czechoslovakia.
Remember that the Czech Army of 1938 bore no resemblance to the Polish Army of 1939. It gave the Germans enough tanks in March 1939 for the Heer to immediately create 3 new panzer divisions.

Everyone around Germany had large and expensive fortifications. The time it stopped the wehrmacht could measued in hours. The best chances to stop Hitler was the time when he ocupied the Rheinland.

Regards
Ede

Only the French (with the Maginot Line), the Belgians and the Czechs had substantial fortifications on the borders of Germany. The Heer could never have gone through the Maginot Line ''in a few hours'' that is why they went round it, through the Ardennes.

Warlimont fully recorded Hitlers' inspection of the Czech border fortifications and the Fuhrers' verdict. That is fact, not hyperbole.

In 1938 the Heer had only five divisions with which to defend Germanys' border with France. The Siegfried Line wasn't even half built. The French had over 100 divisions. The German generals who urged caution drew the correct conclusion, and Hitler belatedly saw their point.

ede144 wrote:Everyone around Germany had large and expensive fortifications. The time it stopped the wehrmacht could measued in hours. The best chances to stop Hitler was the time when he ocupied the Rheinland.

Regards
Ede

..... Sorry, but I agree with RF on this point. There was a reason why Germany scrupulously avoided the Maginot Line when it invaded France.


B

@ RF

You forgot the Swiss, there fortifications and mobilization made the bill to high to risk an attack.

@ Byron

The Wehrmacht avoided the Maginot Line in a strategical sense, however the broke through several times within hours at will. Even Wiky mentioned it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maginot_Line
And in addition the Belgian fortress Eben Emael was attacked by Fallschirmjäger and surrendered within hours too. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Fort_Eben-Emael

So WW II proved that large fortifications are not an effective means of defense anymore. Similar to battleships.

Regards
ede