Annex of Benelux by Third Reich

[Vukdar]

I am having conversation with this guy that claims how Luxemburg, Netherland and Belgium were annexed into the Third Reich and stopped to be countries, and that after the war they would stay like that. In short they would become German colonies.

I thought that they were occupied because of strategy to win the war, because to reach France you must do this, and also to make sure war does not come on german soil.

I must say that my knowledge of how it was ruled and what was the plan with conutries of Benelux is superficial and general so I do not really know is he telling the truth or is this more complicated as I believe it to be.

So what is the deal here? I was googling for 2 hours and managed to find little or nothing. Everything that I read is focused on explaining occupation and not much more.

On wikipedia (sorry) I found just this:

"In September 1944, Allied forces arrived in Belgium and quickly moved across the country. That December, the territory was incorporated de jure into the Greater German Reich although its collaborationist leaders were already in exile in Germany and German control in the region was virtually non-existent. Belgium was declared fully liberated in February 1945."

I interpret this as just nothing. What is the point of declaring this when you do not have any control over it.

My english is maybe not that good, but I hope I explained what troubles me. Any help in explaining this is welcome. Thanks.

[Otium]

It's a silly argument to have over a hypothetical situation we can know nothing about. The war evolved as it was being fought, we don't know what would've happened had the Third Reich won, and sacrificed so much by 1944-45. If peace was made in 1939 or 1941, those countries would not have been incorporated.

We can only speculate on what the new European order would've looked like, but we can say for sure that Germany, had she won in the mid 1940s, would've constituted much of eastern Europe and therefore been the defacto dominant power on the continent.

[Vukdar]

It's a silly argument to have over a hypothetical situation we can know nothing about. The war evolved as it was being fought, we don't know what would've happened had the Third Reich won, and sacrificed so much by 1944-45. If peace was made in 1939 or 1941, those countries would not have been incorporated.

We can only speculate on what the new European order would've looked like, but we can say for sure that Germany, had she won in the mid 1940s, would've constituted much of eastern Europe and therefore been the defacto dominant power on the continent.

I understand that, but I always thought that Germany didn't have intent to take any land in the west. For example France was occupied but was not incorporated into the Reich. I thought occupation was just for the time being until the war was over. That is why I thought it was the same for Benelux countries, that Germans were there just because they had to be, and not because they would actually go and take it for themselves.

I understand that war is unpredictable and it evolved how it evolved, but he is not talking only about future we cannot know. He gives example that Luxemburg was gone and stopped being country right at the beginning which shows what intent Germans had.

[Otium]

I understand that, but I always thought that Germany didn't have intent to take any land in the west. For example France was occupied but was not incorporated into the Reich. I thought occupation was just for the time being until the war was over. That is why I thought it was the same for Benelux countries, that Germans were there just because they had to be, and not because they would actually go and take it for themselves.

I understand that war is unpredictable and it evolved how it evolved, but he is not talking only about future we cannot know. He gives example that Luxemburg was gone and stopped being country right at the beginning which shows what intent Germans had.

Germany didn't have any intentions to lay claim to the West. Germany made no claims, which would've been justified, to Alsace-Lorraine for example. But that territory was incorporated back into Germany when war broke out.

They were certainly in those countries because they had to be, incorporating some territories doesn't make that any less true.

If Luxembourg is an example, why not Switzerland? If the Germans had "plans" (they didn't) to take territories surely they should've acted against Switzerland? Except they didn't, Operation Tannenbaum was abandoned.

It's certainly possible that at the end of the war, when the blood had been spilt and the sacrifices made that countries like Switzerland would've been carved up to incorporate the Germans back into the Reich. But what's the problem with that? Nothing inherently. The European order is constantly being influenced, and always has been, by whoever or whatever had geo-political dominance. At the end of the Second World War it was the Soviets with backing from the British. Europe was not "preserved" to be any certain way that guaranteed the rights, let alone sovereignty of any people. If the Allies were the arbiters of such a great cause, then they wouldn't have disregarded the plight of European minorities at the end of WW1. The fact is in no time in European history has any group been 100% satisfied, or happy with the arrangement. The National Socialists we can see were actually quite consistent, they wanted to unify all the German speaking peoples into one Reich and certainly perused that aim, of which there is nothing inherently wrong. Being a "Nazi" doesn't change that fact.

The European order prior to 1933 when Hitler came to power doesn't become sacred because there are people out there who don't like Hitler or National Socialism. To take a position on how Europe should be divided geographically, based on whether or not you agree with "the Nazis" is to preclude the idea that "the Nazis" had any legitimate claims, or arguments, whatsoever and to simply define yourself as being opposed to whatever they advocate, simply on the basis of a name. The National Socialists had varying ideas when it came to what should be done in Europe (based on German history), we will never know the full extent of what would've occurred at any given stage had peace come earlier, or had the Germans won the war in 1941 for example. We just don't know.

Luxembourg is not a good example because that country had only been independent for 100 years by 1939. That in 1940, 101 years after being made "independent" some Germans thought that Germany had a right to incorporate Luxembourg into the Greater German Reich is hardly surprising. They weren't a foreign people, but had a long history divided between Germany and France. The opinion over Luxembourg is based on one of those complicated European configurations that created new territories due to that very geographic controversy. Luxembourg has seemingly always been a nation influx, determined by much larger forces on the European scene at any given time. I fail to see why Germany's aims were any less legitimate because Gustav Simon - who was given regional control over that occupied territory, which was to be expected given that Germany had occupied the country, and therefore it required German civil administration - personally believed that Luxembourgers should be convinced to side with Germany and come into the Reich.

The wikipedia page doesn't even specify exactly when, or what determined the "annexation" of Luxembourg into the Reich, other than making insinuations based on comments by Simon, and his own personal beliefs about the region. Clearly, if this was the case, it was an ex-post decision, not predetermined and certainly not configured into any large German war aim. Even if the Germans did indeed end up annexing the territory.

There are always going to be people who sympathise with the aims of one country over another, which is why wars start in the first place. If you believe the Allied war aims were justified, then you don't care that Germans didn't like it or got screwed over either at the end of WW1 or WW2. Nobody was trying to make it any better for the Germans, so to turn about face when the Germans pursue aims in their own interests which those who support the Allies do not like and to complain about the "rights" of peoples in Europe, is blatantly hypocritical. The Germans had no illusions about where their loyalties and interest lay. For them it was "Germans first" no matter what. Whether anyone liked it or not. Such a view is more honest, and straightforward than any aims perused by the various Allies who'd rather abandon their principles and lecture others on how they're immoral, rather than look inward at themselves.

The problem with all this controversy is that people are trying to simplify European history into a dichotomy of Nazis=bad no matter what. That the "Nazis" had ideas of what Europe should look like, like everyone else did at the time, and still does today, is not an indictment against them. This attitude is born out of a desire to deride the "Nazis" because they were "Nazis" not because they were wrong.

[Vukdar]

Only reason I asked this question was that I could find very little about it, almost nothing, and also because it didn't interest me very much, and it didn't interest me because I know how it works in a war. I actually saw war as a child and witnessed how 3 nations fought for their goals, and how those goals changed and evolved during war.

I maintained position in this argument that was basically this:

Hitler went into conflicts to resolve things that were unresolved in WW1. He tried on a peaceful way but it failed so that was it. When war started countries were invaded because that is strategy in a war. I made examples out of Norway where Allies also wanted to get in for the same reason as Germans, and none of them really wanted to wipe Norway from the map.

I explained initial reason for invasion of Benelux countries and all of that but he maintained his position which was simply that Germany was imperialistic and simply wanted to take resources and land on the West and East. Ithink he thinks that is the cause of war or something.

Anyway, thank you for your lenghty and interesting response.

[Otium]

I explained initial reason for invasion of Benelux countries and all of that but he maintained his position which was simply that Germany was imperialistic and simply wanted to take resources and land on the West and East. Ithink he thinks that is the cause of war or something.

My only response to people who say this is 'so what?'. Such a concept was not unique to the "Nazis". In fact being a "Nazi" has less to do with it than simply being a German, because plenty of Germans who didn't consider themselves National Socialists still very much endorsed a German foreign policy that would unite the German people into one Reich, even at the expense of those countries like Poland and Czechoslovakia which only came into existence 20 years prior. "Imperialism" is a cop out.

In any case, it's simply not the whole truth. Anyone familiar with the basic historical outline of why the war started should be honest enough to admit that Hitler repeatedly wanted to avoid conflict with the west, and attempted to isolate Poland in a small war he knew he'd be forced to fight. That's the reality.

Albrecht Haushofer, the son of Karl Haushofer the man who developed the concept of 'Geopolitik' and was initially inclined to the Hitler regime, but ended up disillusioned and was in contact with many in the German resistance - wrote a letter "in despair" on July 16th 1939 about the coming of a possible European war. In it he wrote of the German leadership and what they wanted:

So far they want to avoid a 'big war'. But the one man on whom everything depends [Hitler] is still hoping that he may be able to get away with an isolated 'local war'. He still thinks in terms of British bluff. . .

James Douglas-Hamilton, Motive for a Mission: The Story Behind Hess's Flight to Britain (Macmillan St Martin's Press, 1971), Pp. 92.

This is just one example, out of countless, which shows what Hitler expected - he didn't want the war that resulted, nor did he expect it. Goebbels too confirmed the exact same thing as Albrecht in his diary entry on September 1st 1939 the day the war with Poland broke out.

Other than this Hitler also said in 1939:

Keitel’s economics expert Georg Thomas referred, in a speech on Mar 29, 1940, to two unfavourable reports he had submitted: one warned of fuel and ammunition shortages, and called for economic mobilisation in view of the possibility of war with the western powers (possibly the document dated Aug 9, 1939); Hitler however responded there would be ‘no war in the west, just war with Poland.’ On Aug 26, 1939, Thomas submitted to Keitel a second report, which Keitel reluctantly forwarded to Hitler. Hitler rebuked him, ‘Won’t you ever stop pestering me about your “war in the west”!’

David Irving, Hitler's War and the War Path (Focal Point Publications, 2019 Edition), Pp. 864.

After the British and French declared war Hitler hardly had any choice. But he nonetheless gave the Allies a choice between peace and war, they chose war, and historians today are quite happy that they did.

I'm not going to reprimand Hitler for fighting a war he had to fight and taking from his enemies all they were worth if he was forced to do so. Peace could've been made, but that would've mean't German dominance in Europe. If you don't like that, fine, but don't pretend you have any more of a right to declare and fight a war than the Germans because they wanted to have more power on the continent and so did the Allies.

[Vukdar]

Ahhh yes, but they seem to think that it was a plan not just to wage war with Poland, but that whole thing is a plan, whole war to expand all the way to the Urals.

And then we always go back to the Holocaust. In this case they go with theories about Generalplan Ost, and how whole nations (Slavs) would be exterminated. Something for which I have never seen any proof.

[Lamprecht]

This has already been discussed.
From:
Why did Hitler invade so many 'neutral' European countries?
viewtopic.php?t=12421

Benelux
- the Benelux countries (Belgium, Netherlands and Luxembourg) were invaded to defeat France. Also, the Netherlands and Belgium were not trusted to be neutral, the Germans were afraid that the British/French could invade the borders and ports of Holland and Belgium, and within 5 minutes of flying bomb the most important German industrial center, the Ruhrgebiet.
- Unfortunately for the Belgians, their neutrality was violated in basically every conflict between Germany and France. The French violated it twice in the 19th century (Napoleon Bonaparte and Napoleon II) the Battle of Waterloo is a famous example. In the 20th century the Germans also violated Belgian neutrality twice, for obvious tactical reasons: to avoid having to attack the Maginot-line directly.
- The strategic importance of Germany invading France by going through the Benelux countries was explained in the Schlieffen Plan, described here: https://archive.is/7hQAc#selection-2037.1-2139.4
- See also the thread Dutch/Belgian "Neutrality" In 1939-40 - suggesting that the Dutch and Belgians were secretly working with the British and French

and:

I am not sure of the strategic importance of a country like Denmark but in the case of Holland and Belgium it is obvious that if the British were going to continue to bomb Germany then the Germans had to shorten the distance involved in order to bomb back at better advantage, i.e., they could take off from air fields in Holland or Belgium. I assume they occupied Denmark to protect the Baltic, after all they had major submarine bases at Kiel and places not far away. In any case it did the Danes very little harm; one person was killed, that’s all. People forget that Britain and France declared war on Germany, not the other way around. Hitler made 20 peace proposals in the first year of the war; all he ever got was insults. The British have rightfully been called “a country so peace-loving that for 1000 years they never let a generation go by without engaging in warfare someplace else in the world.”

Incidentally the British would have gone to war in 1914 even without a violation of Belgium neutrality because they had secret agreements with the French; Prime Minister Grey lied to Parliament about this. The French had plans to violate Belgian neutrality and openly admitted this.

Another thing, there are no natural barriers between Belgium and northern Germany so if the French had been allowed to violate Belgian neutrality and invade Germany the whole war would have taken place in Germany and Germany would have been wrecked. Belgium was never a neutral country: they had agreements with the British and French against the Germans, but no agreements with the Germans against the British and French. Their manner of resistance (guerilla warfare) proves they were never neutral. Anyway, the Germans were accused of violating two treaties relating to Belgian neutrality: one dated 1838 and one dated 1870 (I believe). The latter expired in 12 months. The 1838 treaty no longer applied partly because of the incorporation of the Belgian Congo into Belgium proper. Under international law, a colony was considered part of the mother country. Hence the Germans and all other parties to the 1839 treaty were supposed to respect the neutrality of the Belgian Congo as well! But they were never asked. A French general said that if anybody on the French General Staff had suggested respecting Belgian neutrality he would have sacked, if not accused of treason. The French moved their entire navy into the Mediterranean on the basis of a secret agreement with the British in 1907, I believe, that the British would protect the French Atlantic sea coast. So Belgium was just an excuse.

and

In regards to the Netherlands the 'Venlo Incident' where Germans caught British spies in the Netherlands which was a violation of neutrality is an important point. Hitler used this to justify the invasion of the Netherlands which is mentioned on the wikipedia

Hitler used the incident to claim that the Netherlands had violated its own neutrality. The presence of Klop, a Dutch agent, whose signature on his personal papers was gratefully misused by the Germans, provided sufficient "proof of cooperation between British and Dutch secret services, and justify an invasion of The Netherlands by Germany in May, 1940".[29]

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

[Otium]

And clearly the British were not themselves opposed to violating the neutrality of other countries, their planned invasion of Norway, which Hitler pre-empted and the Soviet-Anglo Invasion of the Middle East (particularly Iran IIRC), is proof of that as well.

This is to imply that the Allies would certainly not shrink from invading other Western European countries if it was to be to their own benefit. That the Germans did this isn't surprising, or unique in times of war. If one wants to condemn invasions, then one cannot also support the Soviets and their various imperialistic endeavours throughout and after the war for the sake of defeating Germany who was condemned and indicted for doing just that.

[Vukdar]

His argument was not about invading for tactical purposes but about incorporating countries permanently into the Third Reich which also makes no sense since Soviet Union did just that, and British Empire was so huge at the beginning of war.

His other argument was about East, and his question to me was: "If Hitler wanted to fight communism and save Europe from it, or if it was just preemptive strike, then why did he put nationalist leaders (and nationalists) of those countries into concentration camps, and not let them govern themselves and help in that fight which they surely would."

He didn't give me any examples because obviously conversation on facebook is not like on this forum where everybody tries to explain their position to details. That was where I ended this conversation because I became tired of just asking for sources every time, and for detailed explanations on what he means. I would need names of these people who were put in concentration camps and reasons why, etc.

To me, whole campain on East had many reasons and not just one which he simplified to: steal land and resources.

[Kmut00]

And clearly the British were not themselves opposed to violating the neutrality of other countries, their planned invasion of Norway, which Hitler pre-empted and the Soviet-Anglo Invasion of the Middle East (particularly Iran IIRC), is proof of that as well.

This is to imply that the Allies would certainly not shrink from invading other Western European countries if it was to be to their own benefit. That the Germans did this isn't surprising, or unique in times of war. If one wants to condemn invasions, then one cannot also support the Soviets and their various imperialistic endeavours throughout and after the war for the sake of defeating Germany who was condemned and indicted for doing just that.

Hello, first of all I want to introduce myself, I am new to this forum (this is my first comment) and I have started to be interested in WW2 and Holocaust historical revisionism a short time ago, so it is likely that I still lack historical knowledge in many aspects of the WW2. About the German invasion of Norway and the planned British invasion of Norway there is something that has me quite confused, if the Allies planned to invade Norway as the Germans did, then why did the parts of the Norwegian army that could be evacuated then fought with the British? (that is, with one of their potential invaders) and why then in 1945 the Norwegian and Danish population received the Allies as liberators (it is true that there were also Norwegians and Danes who fought with the Germans, but it is a fact that the reaction of the majority of Danes and Norwegians upon arrival of the Allied troops in 1945 was positive)? And this also leads me to another question, if one of the main missions of Adolf Hitler in his foreign policy was to liberate all European peoples from the communist yoke (I don't deny it, it's an obvious fact that Hitler wanted to defend not only Germany but all of Western Europe from the communist threat), why he put under German occupation instead of giving national sovereignty to the countries that had been liberated from the Soviets in 1941 (as he did with Croatia after the defeat of Yugoslavia in the Operation 25, giving to the Croats their independent and sovereign state under the leadership of Ante Pavelic)? I say liberated because it's also an evident fact that the Lithuanians, Latvians, Estonians, Belarusians and above all the Ukrainians received the German troops as liberators (curiously most of the Russians on the other hand were very hostile to the Germans from the beginning despite their anti-communism). However, despite the fact that initially the Baltics, the Belarusians and the Ukrainians received the Germans as liberators, I wonder if the attitude of them can be considered as that of a liberator. Hitler could have done with Belarus, Ukraine, the Baltic Countries and Russia the same thing he did with Croatia, but what he did was putting those territories under German occupation (under the administration of Reichskommissars in the cases of Ukraine, the Baltic Countries and Belarus and under military administration in the case of the parts of Russia that were occupied by the Germans). If Hitler intended to liberate the Eastern European peoples from communism, why, for example, in Ukraine instead of giving a sovereign government to this country once it was liberated from Soviets (which obviously with the case of Croatia would be a government who had been member of the Axis powers and therefore and ally of Germany) established the Reichskommissariat Ukraine? As I said before, it is an undeniable fact that Adolf Hitler wanted to defend the freedom of Germany and all of Western Europe from the threat posed by communism to Western civilization, but it is also true that the Nazis had a great animosity against the Slavic peoples (and not only the Germans, many other Western Europeans also hated the Slavs, the anti-Slavic sentiment in many western countries was very common at that time, and in the same way, the Slavs also hated the Germanic Europeans, the sentiment was mutual, so with that I am not attacking Hitler and the Germans, but it's a fact that he despised the Slavic peoples) and that for the Germans the war against the USSR was not only a fight to protect their country and Western Europe from communism but also a war of conquest for colonial purposes.
As I have said before, I am new in the historical revisionism so it is likely that many of my claims are incorrect, that is the reason why I have registered in this forum, because it is one of the few places where it is possible to speak and debate freely about the Second World War and the Holocaust.

[Otium]

About the German invasion of Norway and the planned British invasion of Norway there is something that has me quite confused, if the Allies planned to invade Norway as the Germans did, then why did the parts of the Norwegian army that could be evacuated then fought with the British? (that is, with one of their potential invaders) and why then in 1945 the Norwegian and Danish population received the Allies as liberators (it is true that there were also Norwegians and Danes who fought with the Germans, but it is a fact that the reaction of the majority of Danes and Norwegians upon arrival of the Allied troops in 1945 was positive)?

Welcome to the forum.

I'm not sure why you're confused really. It's not in dispute that the Germans pre-empted a British invasion of Norway, this fact isn't contradicted by the idea that the Allies were considered "Liberators" although I don't know how true that is.

See this article by John Wear:

How Britain Forced The Invasion of Norway & Denmark By Germany Then Blamed Hitler, Again. | Archive

[Hannover]

Never mentioned are facts like these:

- "Neutral" Belgium actually aided & abetted France by allowing France to position 2,000,000 French soldiers within Belgium near Belgium's border with Germany

- "Neutral" Belgium actually aided & abetted Britain by allowing Britain to add an additional 500,000 British troops within Belgium near Belgium's border with Germany

- France was allowed to use Belgian and Dutch airspace for their military aircraft before Germany did anything.

- Britain was allowed to use Belgian and Dutch airspace for their military aircraft before Germany did anything.

Hannover

[Vukdar]

What Kmut00 wrote was almost identical argument that guy I was talking to had.

Anyway, how you figure that Germans hated slavs when Croats are also slavs?

After the war many Croats went to work in Germany, and that friendship between peoples/nations still lasts. Mostly because Croats are hard working people which is one of the things Germans like, because they are the same.

Anyway, I had conversation with one old gentleman that worked in Germany in the same construction company for 40 years. He says he ate in the same spot in the cantina for the whole time he was there. Incredible. Even German gentleman who was dealing with his papers when he went to retire said he rarely saw similar case.

Anyway, he said something like: "Country was in ruin, and we had to build it together with Germans."

In Croatia you had population of ethnic Germans that got persecuted by partisans/communists after the war.

So I think there was no exceptional hate there except towards peoples that were hostile who were sometimes by chance slavs. Sure, strong language may have been used but who didn't do that during war?

[Hektor]

It's a silly argument to have over a hypothetical situation we can know nothing about. The war evolved as it was being fought, we don't know what would've happened had the Third Reich won, and sacrificed so much by 1944-45. If peace was made in 1939 or 1941, those countries would not have been incorporated.

We can only speculate on what the new European order would've looked like, but we can say for sure that Germany, had she won in the mid 1940s, would've constituted much of eastern Europe and therefore been the defacto dominant power on the continent.

I understand that, but I always thought that Germany didn't have intent to take any land in the west. For example France was occupied but was not incorporated into the Reich. I thought occupation was just for the time being until the war was over. That is why I thought it was the same for Benelux countries, that Germans were there just because they had to be, and not because they would actually go and take it for themselves.

I understand that war is unpredictable and it evolved how it evolved, but he is not talking only about future we cannot know. He gives example that Luxemburg was gone and stopped being country right at the beginning which shows what intent Germans had.

They took the Elsass and Eupen-Malmedy region (back). I think they indeed annexed Luxembourg in 1942. But that's it. How Europe would be reordered after an Axis victory is another matter and subject of speculation.

The reasons why the Benelux countries were invaded and occupied are far more interesting, since this is based on events that really happened.