Military Defeat Research Articles

A Territorial Pattern for the Military Occupation of Germany

With the military defeat of Germany now assured, it becomes imperative to complete plans for occupation of the country. There is apparent agreement among the United Nations that Germany must be occupied; but, although much work has been done on the subject, by both the military and political branches of the several Allied Governments, to date we have not had any general policy directives from the heads of the three great powers, namely, Russia, Great Britain, and the United States. Presumably, at the Teheran conference Churchill, Roosevelt, and Stalin came to a preliminary meeting of minds with reference to the various aspects of the war against Germany. At the second Quebec conference, it may reasonably be assumed that the President and Mr. Churchill, keeping in close contact with the Soviet leader, finally came to some definite agreement regarding the measures necessary to encompass the complete defeat and occupation of Germany.It has been generally agreed all around that Germany must be occupied by the troops of the Allied Nations, but many of the specific details of such an occupation have not yet been thought through. When we speak of the occupation of Germany, we must first of all define exactly what we mean by the term Germany. It is expected that “Germany” will be understood to cover only those territories included within the Republic prior to Hitler's accession to power. It might be better to agree that the boundaries shall be understood to be those of January 1, 1932.

Some Intellectually Dishonest Arguments -- And Some That Are "Plain Dumb" -- Against the Study of Foreign Languages

IN THE past year or two I have been collecting occasional newspaper clippings dealing with the subject Why France Fell. Nearly all the people who make bold to offer their simple (and you can take simple in any sense you like) explanations of what after all is a very complicated matter, obviously see in the military defeat of France an opportunity to say See, I told you so! It was the Jews (Communists, Industrialists, Popular Front, Catholic Church, Capitalists, Labor, or whatnot) that caused the downfall of Each, out of his particular bias, blames the one thing concerning which he has a prejudice or a mind-set. This reaction is somewhat like that too commonly observed among the overstuffed element in American life whenever anything displeases them; their necks get red and their faces apoplectic as they blame it all on Man in the White House--or his wife, or his sons. France fell for a multitude of reasons, not the least among which were German military efficiency, German unscrupulousness, and the blindness and somnolence regarding the Axis menace from which not only France, but England, the small European countries, and-until Pearl Harbor-in large measure the United States, alike suffered. To attribute the military disaster that befell France to one factor alone betrays lack of perspective and, in some instances, an active prejudice. An example is the attempt by one American educationist to fasten the blame for the French debicle on what he called the aristocratic French school-system. This surprised a good many people who had come to look on the French schools as among the best in the world, as one of the great achievements of Republican France. But this gentleman had the answer, or thought he had, and apparently felt no restraint about popping off on the subject. A similar argument has been brought forward to discredit foreign language study. It is also simple, and betrays the bias of those who advance it. Unfortunately it betrays something more than bias or prejudice; it is obviously meant to be smart, subtle, a clever bit of word-juggling to make a point-as if the maker were looking around for approval of his cleverness and saying There! That puts you in a fix! What a smart boy am I

Morale in France During the War

The morale factor was the chief cause for the collapse of France; this is emphasized by the fact that the political breakdown followed the military defeat and that the French government preferred a policy of "collaboration" with Hitler rather than a continuation of the struggle in North Africa. Generally speaking, the French are a peaceful people. When the war broke out, nothing was done by the government to mobilize the moral resources of the country and to emphasize the ideological content of the war. In the army the weak point was the morale of the officers. The majority of the troop officers were young reserve men recruited among the bourgeoisie, who manifested the defects of their class. As far as the general staff was concerned, its weakness was the result of an insufficient intellectual preparation for modern war, as well as its pro-fascist sympathies. The French government is a pro-fascist government, principally composed of generals and representatives of leading industries. This government is not popular. There is an awakening of the national sentiment coming from the roughness of the German occupation and a revival of an anti-fascist and democratic feeling. The recent events prove that democracy is still living in France.

The Collapse of German Democracy under the Brüning Government March 30, 1930-May 30, 1932

THE TRIUMPH of national socialism over democracy in Germany confronts the historian with a chain of contemporary political phenomena which has been variously analyzed as and as reaction as the climax of a series of political accidents and as the culmination of an extended historic process' That these phenomena were preceded by the historic decline of the Bismarckian imperialism and the collapse of the old order in military defeat and social revolution in 1918 has been generally recognized by students of twentieth century Europe. The undermining of the ideological basis of the German democratic republic required fourteen years of revolutionary activity by mutually hostile forces of Communists, Nationalists, and National Socialists. Moreover, German democracy was confronted with a prewar phenomenon, Spenglerism, which renounced a traditionalist civilization without a future, and preached the national need of a new culture as the best preparation for Germany's second bid for world power. Meanwhile, the allied victors had refused to modify Versailles, its boundaries, its fundamental reparation demands, its restrictions on German sovereignty, and its accusation of war guilt. Europe was in revolution; gigantic populations in Russia and Italy were reorganizing under dictatorships. A new nationalism was rising in Europe which had broken definitely the union of cultural nineteenth century nationalism and political liberalism, and had set up new cults for the awakened masses of the old world.

The Seizure of the Danish Fleet, 1807: The Background

In 1805 Napoleon was confronted by the naval power of England, on the one hand, and by the vast military strength of Austria, Russia, and presently Prussia, on the other. The armies of the Continental states he had often defeated, but after every defeat these armies had been reorganized and augmented with the help of English gold. The source of that gold had to be destroyed. A military defeat of the British would accomplish that end and probably decide the issue of the war. Napoleon’s first idea was, therefore, to invade England. That dream was shattered by the English naval victory at Trafalgar, October 21, 1805.