General Discussions
This is the place to discuss general issues related to the U-boat war or the war at sea in WWII.
Re: stealing and the allies
Posted by:
oliver
()
Date: November 08, 2001 06:20PM
<HTML>
Stealing is a rather inflammatory word.
This was not meant to inflame anyone,but the position of the german side in short words.
The defeated governments, as part of the cease fire they signed, agreed to hand over all
armaments to the allied powers.
Agreed? i mean forced as there was no other way,huh? And there was no written "Agreement" in this.The stuff was simply seized.
After all, they had no further need for them
how do you know? planes,Ships etc. can be needed for civil uses,too. especially when you think of the big rescue operation in the east under way up to the last split second up to may 8th, 00.00 Uhr.
, and the
disarming of a defeated country is a logical and justifiable step.
logical? justifiable? to a degree yes.but considered the allied actions in this matter after ww1 paved only the way to ww2.
I disagree that the allies 'stole' armaments. They received the surrender of now discarded
armaments to preserve the peace.
No.sorry.I dont want to inflame you here,but this is @#$%&. Nobody recieved the surrender of discarded armament. Armament cant talk,huh?
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'.
Agreed.
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.
Now..esp. the us used this "military" equipment and the chif of this programme von braun for their civil space programme.But this was also used to gain time in arms development.So agreed on the last point.
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,
Do you really think so? Or was the protection of the "free" world not some kind of policy to cover the own interests?
including Germany - so in a way it was put to a better use on
behalf of everyone, including Germans, by being 'appropriated'.
So the german fighter planes now being in us hands and museums are protecting the free world there,huh?
The immiediate post war
(1945 - 1950) Germans certainly had not legitimate use for submarines, rocket research, or
tank factories.
Wha not? Germany was an independent nation starting 1949.Dont forget the soviets rearming the east germans and definitely dont forget the german navy clearing the seas of the mine threat.which was done starting 1945 with german personnel and boats.
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.
depends on your definition of "much".agreed.there was a lot stuff stolen by the germans.no excuses here.but also much of it was kept by the one nation or the other because the owner could not be found.exaggeratinng a bit you can say here that some governments were enriching themselves here again one time at the cost of someone who might not produce the proper papers of ownership because he was in captivity and not allowed to own anything but maybe his life.
2) Immediately after the war Germany was very poor, and in no condition to properly
preserve, store, or display a lot of artwork.
Dont make me laugh! That`sone of the most ridiculous pros I ever heard for taking away something thats not belonging to yourself.
Certainly a little protective custody during the
post war recovery could be forgiven.
As I said...some governments do STILL hold those things in "protective custody". And i am not only talking about Russia here who consider german art property still as war booty.
But I agree with you that using victory in war as a bonanza to fill your art museums is
wrong.
yup.</HTML>
Stealing is a rather inflammatory word.
This was not meant to inflame anyone,but the position of the german side in short words.
The defeated governments, as part of the cease fire they signed, agreed to hand over all
armaments to the allied powers.
Agreed? i mean forced as there was no other way,huh? And there was no written "Agreement" in this.The stuff was simply seized.
After all, they had no further need for them
how do you know? planes,Ships etc. can be needed for civil uses,too. especially when you think of the big rescue operation in the east under way up to the last split second up to may 8th, 00.00 Uhr.
, and the
disarming of a defeated country is a logical and justifiable step.
logical? justifiable? to a degree yes.but considered the allied actions in this matter after ww1 paved only the way to ww2.
I disagree that the allies 'stole' armaments. They received the surrender of now discarded
armaments to preserve the peace.
No.sorry.I dont want to inflame you here,but this is @#$%&. Nobody recieved the surrender of discarded armament. Armament cant talk,huh?
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'.
Agreed.
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.
Now..esp. the us used this "military" equipment and the chif of this programme von braun for their civil space programme.But this was also used to gain time in arms development.So agreed on the last point.
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,
Do you really think so? Or was the protection of the "free" world not some kind of policy to cover the own interests?
including Germany - so in a way it was put to a better use on
behalf of everyone, including Germans, by being 'appropriated'.
So the german fighter planes now being in us hands and museums are protecting the free world there,huh?
The immiediate post war
(1945 - 1950) Germans certainly had not legitimate use for submarines, rocket research, or
tank factories.
Wha not? Germany was an independent nation starting 1949.Dont forget the soviets rearming the east germans and definitely dont forget the german navy clearing the seas of the mine threat.which was done starting 1945 with german personnel and boats.
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.
depends on your definition of "much".agreed.there was a lot stuff stolen by the germans.no excuses here.but also much of it was kept by the one nation or the other because the owner could not be found.exaggeratinng a bit you can say here that some governments were enriching themselves here again one time at the cost of someone who might not produce the proper papers of ownership because he was in captivity and not allowed to own anything but maybe his life.
2) Immediately after the war Germany was very poor, and in no condition to properly
preserve, store, or display a lot of artwork.
Dont make me laugh! That`sone of the most ridiculous pros I ever heard for taking away something thats not belonging to yourself.
Certainly a little protective custody during the
post war recovery could be forgiven.
As I said...some governments do STILL hold those things in "protective custody". And i am not only talking about Russia here who consider german art property still as war booty.
But I agree with you that using victory in war as a bonanza to fill your art museums is
wrong.
yup.</HTML>
