General Discussions
This is the place to discuss general issues related to the U-boat war or the war at sea in WWII.
stealing and the allies
Posted by:
kurt
()
Date: November 08, 2001 05:24PM
<HTML>Stealing is a rather inflammatory word.
The defeated governments, as part of the cease fire they signed, agreed to hand over all armaments to the allied powers. After all, they had no further need for them, and the disarming of a defeated country is a logical and justifiable step.
I disagree that the allies 'stole' armaments. They received the surrender of now discarded armaments to preserve the peace.
As for purely civilain infrastructure, like power plants or railroad cars, whether you call it war booty or war repriations, that is, in my mind, much more questionable to 'appropriate'.
Military research equipment devoid of civilian value, like the rocketry work at Penemunde (sp?) is in a grayer area, but I think treating purely military use infrastructure like armaments (ie: should be siezed by the allies) is appropriate. And, after all, the allies (particularly the US) used the Penemunde research and equipment for the defense of itself - and the rest of the free world, including Germany - so in a way it was put to a better use on behalf of everyone, including Germans, by being 'appropriated'. The immiediate post war (1945 - 1950) Germans certainly had not legitimate use for submarines, rocket research, or tank factories.
On the other hand, the seizing of art works and other cultural treasures really wasn't justified. But I would add two things:
1) much of the art work taken from Nazi Germany was in fact stolen by the Nazis, and was being returned to their rightful owners.
2) Immediately after the war Germany was very poor, and in no condition to properly preserve, store, or display a lot of artwork. Certainly a little protective custody during the post war recovery could be forgiven.
But I agree with you that using victory in war as a bonanza to fill your art museums is wrong.</HTML>
The defeated governments, as part of the cease fire they signed, agreed to hand over all armaments to the allied powers. After all, they had no further need for them, and the disarming of a defeated country is a logical and justifiable step.
I disagree that the allies 'stole' armaments. They received the surrender of now discarded armaments to preserve the peace.
As for purely civilain infrastructure, like power plants or railroad cars, whether you call it war booty or war repriations, that is, in my mind, much more questionable to 'appropriate'.
Military research equipment devoid of civilian value, like the rocketry work at Penemunde (sp?) is in a grayer area, but I think treating purely military use infrastructure like armaments (ie: should be siezed by the allies) is appropriate. And, after all, the allies (particularly the US) used the Penemunde research and equipment for the defense of itself - and the rest of the free world, including Germany - so in a way it was put to a better use on behalf of everyone, including Germans, by being 'appropriated'. The immiediate post war (1945 - 1950) Germans certainly had not legitimate use for submarines, rocket research, or tank factories.
On the other hand, the seizing of art works and other cultural treasures really wasn't justified. But I would add two things:
1) much of the art work taken from Nazi Germany was in fact stolen by the Nazis, and was being returned to their rightful owners.
2) Immediately after the war Germany was very poor, and in no condition to properly preserve, store, or display a lot of artwork. Certainly a little protective custody during the post war recovery could be forgiven.
But I agree with you that using victory in war as a bonanza to fill your art museums is wrong.</HTML>
