It seems that Germany must've been under incredible scrutiny especially by the British.

How was Hitler able to rearm?

Please provide specifics on personnel and weapons classes.

  • I like the question but it seems there are two separate questions folded inside it: (1) How did Hitler rearm? (2) How was Hitler able to rearm? The first one is a question about materiel, interesting for weapons buffs and reasonably important for general history as well (it does make a difference if Hitler was able to amass 1000, 5000 or 20000 tanks, for example, by 1939. However, the second question is, I think the more interesting one after all, being a question of political history. – Felix Goldberg May 9 '13 at 8:44
  • So I suggest splitting it off into two questions. – Felix Goldberg May 9 '13 at 8:44
  • @FelixGoldberg different types of personnel & weapons have various levels of visibility. you can build air & naval fleets by pretending they're privately owned, but an army is harder to conceal – user2296 May 9 '13 at 13:12
  • 1
    Come to think of it, perhaps we need to establish some of the facts first - as far as I know, Hitler made absolutely no attempt to conceal his re-armament drive. As a matter of fact, he made a great deal of fuss about it (for domestic propaganda and to get the support of top brass like "Paper Tiger" Blomberg before he completed his takeover of the German state and national psyche). So I think the relevant question is "Why didn't the British do/say anything about German re-armament?!" rather than "How come the British didn't notice German was re-arming?!". Do you concur? – Felix Goldberg May 9 '13 at 15:24
  • 1
    let us continue this discussion in chat – Felix Goldberg May 9 '13 at 19:16

To take one example, in 1935, Hitler negotiated the Anglo German Naval Treaty (details in the link).

Anglo-German Naval Agreement

This treaty "broke" the Versailles Treaty because it gave Germany naval tonnage limits ABOVE Versailles. It was a bilateral treaty between England and Germany, concluded without consulting the other Versailles signatories, especially France and Italy.

Basically, Chamberlain's Britain tolerated a few German deviations from the Versailles Treaty as long as her own interests didn't seem to be threatened. They learned too late that "a few German deviations" would add up to another world war.

  • 1
    perfect example considering that their previous fight was mostly naval – user2296 May 9 '13 at 1:15
  • 1
    Previous fight was mostly naval? WWI? – CGCampbell Jul 22 '14 at 17:39
  • @CGCampbell: It was a breach of the Versailles Treaty. One breach soon led to others. – Tom Au Jul 22 '14 at 18:13

Germany became a clandestine arms supplier as a way to build its own industrial capabilities, for example building U-boats for Turkey before WW2.

Turkish U-boat Batiray

foreign U-boats

This included Bombers for the Swedes and fighters for the Spanish Civil War.

Swedish Junkers Torpedo Bombers

The He-115 floatplane was exported before the war to both Finland Sweden and Norway. MI.6 obtained and operated five of these Norwegian He-115 aircraft in clandestine operations against Germany during the war

He-115 history

Germany also supplied fighters and Wright Cyclone engine powered He-111 bombers to the Nationalist Chinese before WW2 and assisted the Soviets to re-arm. "The He-111 was exported and/or produced in a number of different countries. He-111s were shipped to China, Romania, Hungary, Slovakia, Spain, Turkey and Bulgaria."

History of the He-111

In addition to the hardware they provided mercenary crews as a way to gain experience. Source Bund Archiv Freiburg

Russian pilot training for Luftwaffe

  • Do you carry a bibilography of everything you have ever read with you? Are you hostile to everybody who offers any answers or is this just an exclusive brethern for those you accept into you coven? – user2357 Jul 23 '14 at 0:11
  • This site is meant to become an online reference, hence the request for sources. – andy256 Jul 23 '14 at 2:56
  • Then a simple polite request for sources rather than a personal attack is all that is required. – user2357 Jul 23 '14 at 4:32
  • Relax. Everyone writes a little strongly or loosely at times. And anyone can interpret intent where there is none. Better to let perceived slights pass. Third parties see the exchange and draw their own conclusions - about each of us. – andy256 Jul 23 '14 at 6:20
  • I never intended a personal attack. If that's the way it came across, then I'll delete it and switch to decaf. – Mark C. Wallace Jul 23 '14 at 10:40

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy