Red line for WWII? - Page 2 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

The Second World War (1939-1945).
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
User avatar
By ArtAllm
#14314034
wat0n wrote:So Nazi Germany wanted to grab even more land (hence its refusal to leave Danzig), thanks for showing us why the UK and France stayed firm in their previous commitments to Poland.


Danzig was not Poland, Danzig was German land, and the population of Danzig wanted the reunification of Germany.

It is idiotic to call voluntary reunification of two states into one states "land grab".

Land grab is something that happened after WWII, when German civilians were expelled from Danzig, and land grab is something that happens today in Palestine.

Every decent person can understand what is moral, and what is immoral.


wat0n wrote:.. Nazi Germany shouldn't have gone into Poland because it was against its own interests:


It was in the interest of Germans who were killed by the Poles, and it was in the interest of the population of Danzig that was threatened by the Poles.

wat0n wrote: Britain may have lost its empire...


Thank you! The rest of your post is irrelevant for Brits, though it may be relevant to the British financial elite.

Brits lost their Empire, though they may have preserved it! The British elite acted irrational. The Brits were not threatened before WWII by the Third Reich, but they were threatened by the Soviets after WWII.

Cui bono?

The British people?
No!

Ergo:

The British elite did not act in the best interest of their people, though it may have acted in the best interest of the Square Mile.
By wat0n
#14314043
ArtAllm wrote:Danzig was not Poland, Danzig was German land, and the population of Danzig wanted the reunification of Germany.

It is idiotic to call voluntary reunification of two states into one states "land grab".

Land grab is something that happened after WWII, when German civilians were expelled from Danzig, and land grab is something that happens today in Palestine.

Every decent person can understand what is moral, and what is immoral.


No, Danzig wasn't German, it was an autonomous city-state within Polish territory under League of Nations protection.

Germany's forcible annexation of it was a land-grab, like it or not. I actually think the wishes of its inhabitants should have been respected, but that doesn't change the facts.

ArtAllm wrote:It was in the interest of Germans who were killed by the Poles, and it was in the interest of the population of Danzig that was threatened by the Poles.


ArtAllm wrote:Thank you! The rest of your post is irrelevant for Brits, though it may be relevant to the British financial elite.

Brits lost their Empire, though they may have preserved it! The British elite acted irrational. The Brits were not threatened before WWII by the Third Reich, but they were threatened by the Soviets after WWII.

Cui bono?

The British people?
No!

Ergo:

The British elite did not act in the best interest of their people, though it may have acted in the best interest of the Square Mile.


And by extension it follows that the Nazi leadership didn't act in the best interests of their people, or their own for that matter. After all, they started a war they lost for the sake of Danzig, if we are to follow your own arguments.

Oh wait, that didn't make sense! Of course the British didn't participate in the war to lose their empire, in fact it's ridiculous to claim so. But following your own reasoning, they did, just like the Nazis really wanted the US, UK, USSR and France to occupy and divide Germany and hang them in Nuremberg.
By layman
#14314044
1.There is absolutely no guarantee that Britain would had hold on to her Empire without an European war.

2. There was absolutely no Guarantee that a Super Power Germany would not had looked at British Empire after neutralizing Poland and France. Even if Hitler liked Britain, that was not guaranteed with his successors.

3. Fighting Germany 1939 would had been more easier than a superpower hegemonic Germany.


All true but then there was no guarantee we were going to win on the path we took. There is just no evidence or reason to think that Germany wanted to conquery the UK or its empire. In fact nazi theorists all explicitly stated that this wasnt desired. They wanted an alliance.

Why would this change? Germany wanted living space for more germanic peoples and that is what Russia was for. A british ally would have been far more useful for trade and using as a naval resource.

Not saying it is impossible but the only rational for such a scenario is in idea that the nazis were not rational and kinda crazy.

I think Britain did the right thing from the pov of their interests.


So do I but only because the Nazis were so morally despicable. I don’t think the case is very strong from a real-politic perspective.

Even at that time it was clear that Britain’s position in the world was weakening and there was nothing that could be done about that.

If retaining the empire was an objective then Germany/Japan offered far more potential as allies than America/Russia.

This much is obvious. We know for a fact the both the Soviet Union and the USA wanted the end of the British empire as soon as possible. We can speculate that it would eventually be the same with the Nazis but we do not know if for a fact.
User avatar
By ArtAllm
#14314113
fuser wrote:1.There is absolutely no guarantee that Britain would had hold on to her Empire without an European war.

2. There was absolutely no Guarantee that a Super Power Germany would not had looked at British Empire after neutralizing Poland and France. Even if Hitler liked Britain, that was not guaranteed with his successors.


Well, the Third Reich accepted the ultimatum of the Brits, Hitler promised to withdraw the troops from Poland and pay reparations to Poland for the inflicted damage.

He sent the ambassador Hesse to Chamberlain on 2. September 1939 to communicate this proposal.

If the UK had agreed to this proposal, that was made on 2. September 1939, then Poland would have remained an independent state, there would be no declaration of WWII, no invasion of Soviets into Poland, no invasion of the Wehrmacht into France, etc. etc.

In other words, the Third Reich would not have become a superpower, the only thing that would have happened - the reunification of Danzig with Germany and a rail-road from Germany to Danzig.

That was the proposal of the Third Reich that was rejected by the UK.

fuser wrote:3. Fighting Germany 1939 would had been more easier than a superpower hegemonic Germany.

I think Britain did the right thing from the pov of their interests.


Well, you basically say that Great Britain waged a preventive war against the Third Reich, because Germany could at some time in the future become a hypothetical threat to the interests of the UK.

And that is why UK allied with the Soviet Union, a state that promoted World Revolution, and the USA, a state that pushed for World domination.

Was it not idiotic to start a preventive war because of some imaginable hypothetical threat?

No, that was not a rational behaviour.

If there was a chance to prevent WWII, then it should have been prevented.

That is what rational thinking people do.

This was a devastating World War that claimed about 50 million human lives, and Great Britain killed herself because she was afraid of death.

Irrational thinking people kill themselves and millions of others, because they are afraid of a hypothetical threat.

That is what experts call paranoia.

###########################

wat0n wrote:
No, Danzig wasn't German...


Of course it was German, because more than 90% of population of this city were Germans with German citizenship.

wat0n wrote:... it was an autonomous city-state within Polish territory under League of Nations protection.


It was an independent state that had borders with Poland, nothing else. It is idiotic to say that Danzig was within Polish territory, dude.

wat0n wrote:Germany's forcible annexation of it was a land-grab...


It was not a forcible annexation, because the population of this German province ALWAYS wanted the reunification with Germany.

Following Germany's defeat in World War I, the Allied powers in the Treaty of Versailles (1919) decided to create the Free City of Danzig (under a commissioner appointed by the League of Nations) covering the city itself, the seaport, and a substantial surrounding territory. The League of Nations rejected the citizens' petition to have their city officially named as the Free Hanseatic city of Danzig (Freie Hansestadt Danzig).[41] The citizens of Danzig received a separate citizenship of the Free City and thus lost their former German citizenship.

According to the official census of 1923 3.7 percent of city population was Polish (13,656 out of 366,730 citizens of the Free City). In the 1920s and 1930s the city's population was over 90% German.[42][43] However Polish claims range up to around 22.000, or around 6% of the population, and increased to around 13% in the 1930s.[44] In the elections to the Free City of Danzig's Parliament the results of Polish Parties declined from 6.08 percent of votes in 1919 to 3.15 in 1927 and 3.53 in 1935.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Gdańsk#Monastic_State_of_the_Teutonic_Knights_.281308.E2.80.931454.29


As we see, the non-German population of Danzig was ALWAYS a small minority, and in any poll the majority of the population was ALWAYS in favour of reunification.

The German Wikipedia is even more outspoken:

Die Gründung der Freien Stadt erfolgte durch die Siegermächte des Ersten Weltkrieges unter Protest eines großen Teiles der Danziger Bevölkerung, da dieser Maßnahme keine Volksabstimmung vorausging.

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freie_Stad ... .B6lkerung


The separation of Danzig from the rest of Germany was done without the approval of the population of this city. It was a violation of the principles, declared in Versailles.

The population of Danzig was forcibly deprived of their German citizenship, that was immoral, and any party in the Weimar Republic promised their voters that it will fight for the reunification of Danzig with Germany.

This policy was nothing special, it did not originate with the National Socialism. In fact, National Socialists had to follow the demands of the German people and adopt the policy of the Weimar Republic in this issue.

wat0n wrote:And by extension it follows that the Nazi leadership didn't act in the best interests of their people, or their own for that matter.


As already told, the reunification of Danzig with the rest of Germany was in the program of ALL German parties, there was a total consensus in this issue, this policy was not new.

That was the wish of German people. The German parties just represented the desires of German people for reunification.

What to declaration of WWII by the UK, this was not the wish of the British people.

wat0n wrote:After all, they started a war they lost for the sake of Danzig, if we are to follow your own arguments.


Well, Germany was dismembered after WWI and tried to reunite parts of its own territory.
The reunification of own territory is rational and moral, and this did not threaten the security or the interests of Great Britain.

wat0n wrote:Oh wait, that didn't make sense! Of course the British didn't participate in the war to lose their empire, in fact it's ridiculous to claim so.


The USSR and USA were the real rivals of Great Britain, not the Third Reich!

USSR pushed the World Revolution via the Comintern, and USA pushed for World Domination.
It was predictable that a war against Japan would mean the end of the British Empire, because English colonies were threatened by Japan, and England was unable to protect them.

Britain's declaration of war against Nazi Germany in September 1939 included the Crown colonies and India but did not automatically commit the Dominions. Australia, Canada, New Zealand, Newfoundland and South Africa all soon declared war on Germany, but the Irish Free State chose to remain legally neutral throughout the war.[152]
...
In December 1941, Japan launched, in quick succession, attacks on British Malaya, the United States naval base at Pearl Harbor, and Hong Kong.

Churchill's reaction to the entry of the United States into the war was that Britain was now assured of victory and the future of the empire was safe,[156] but the manner in which the British rapidly surrendered irreversibly harmed Britain's standing and prestige as an imperial power.[157][158]

Most damaging of all was the fall of Singapore, which had previously been hailed as an impregnable fortress and the eastern equivalent of Gibraltar.[159]

The realisation that Britain could not defend its entire empire pushed Australia and New Zealand, which now appeared threatened by Japanese forces, into closer ties with the United States, which after the war eventually resulted in the 1951 ANZUS Pact between Australia, New Zealand and the United States of America.[154]
Decolonisation and decline (1945–1997)

Though Britain and the empire emerged victorious from the Second World War, the effects of the conflict were profound, both at home and abroad.

Much of Europe, a continent that had dominated the world for several centuries, was in ruins, and host to the armies of the United States and the Soviet Union, who now held the balance of global power.[160]

Britain was left essentially bankrupt, with insolvency only averted in 1946 after the negotiation of a $US 4.33 billion loan (US$56 billion in 2012) from the United States,[161] the last instalment of which was repaid in 2006.[162]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Empire


As we see, it was easy to predict the future of Great Britain, and if Churchill's brain was not poisoned by alcohol, he would not have pushed for WWII, even before he got the whole power.

Who could predict that Great Britain would behave so foolishly and start a World War with all the millions of human losses, in order to get bankrupt and lose its empire?

If somebody is a rational thinking person, then he expects that other people also behave rationally.

Do you understand what I mean?

Would you expect that somebody will kill himself, even if he has no need to do this, only because he has an irrational desire to harm you?

That was precisely the behaviour of Great Britain before WWII.

Today Great Britain is just a joke, and even what was left of Germany after WWII has more significance in Europe, that the UK.

They tried after the WWII to starve about 20 Million Germans to death (Morgenthau Plan) and reduce Germany to an agrarian state, but then they realised that the death of Germany will lead to the death of Europe, because Germany is the motor of Europe and the European economy cannot exist without Germany.

So they abandoned their genocidal plan, and after the collapse of the SU the artificial separation of East- and West Germany could not be maintained any more. They had to permit the reunification of Germany and the re-creation of Slovakia, and agree that Czechoslovakia is an artificial creation that cannot survive without brutal force.

The German territories, that were ethnically cleansed by Poles and Soviets, are now backward provinces.

Königsberg is today a backward province of Russia, and so is Danzig and other former German cities and provinces.

Germany is today the motor of the EU, without German money Poland cannot survive, even with the ethnically cleansed German provinces. The same with the rest of Europe. If German taxpayer stops to pay, the whole project, called EU, will immediately collapse.
Last edited by ArtAllm on 15 Oct 2013 20:30, edited 2 times in total.
By wat0n
#14314141
ArtAllm wrote:Of course it was German, because more than 90% of population of this city were Germans with German citizenship.


So what? That doesn't make it German territory anymore than Israeli settlements in the West Bank are Israeli territory.

ArtAllm wrote:It was an independent state that had borders with Poland, nothing else. It is idiotic to say that Danzig was within Polish territory, dude.


Danzig was specifically left as a non-independent state by the Treaty of Versailles:

Wikipedia wrote:The Free City of Danzig (German : Freie Stadt Danzig ; Polish : Wolne Miasto Gdańsk ) was a semi-autonomous city-state that existed between 1920 and 1939, consisting of the Baltic Sea port of Danzig (today Gdańsk ) and nearly 200 towns in the surrounding areas. It was created on 15 November 1920 [1][2] in accordance with the terms of Article 100 (Section XI of Part III) of the 1919 Treaty of Versailles .

The Free City included the city of Danzig and other nearby towns, villages, and settlements that had been primarily occupied by ethnic Germans. As the Treaty stated, the region was to remain separated from the nation of Germany and from the newly independent nation of Poland, but it was not an independent state. [3] The Free City was under League of Nations protection and put into a binding customs union with Poland.

Poland was given full rights to develop and maintain transportation, communication, and port facilities in the city. [4] The Free City was created in order to give Poland access to a well-sized seaport, while acknowledging that the city's population was roughly ninety-five percent German. [5] The Polish minority in the city continued to be oppressed and Germanized by the local German authorities. [6][7] They faced significant resentment and hatred from the German population. [8] and local authorities continued policies of discrimination and oppression against the Poles [7]

In 1933, the City's government was taken over by the local Nazi Party , which suppressed democratic opposition. Due to anti-Semitic persecution and oppression, many Jews fled. After the German invasion of Poland in 1939, the Nazis abolished the Free City and incorporated the area into the newly formed Reichsgau of Danzig-West Prussia. The Germans classified the Poles and Jews as subhumans, subjecting them to discrimination, forced labor, and extermination. Many were sent to death at concentration camps.

During the city's conquest by the Soviet Army in the early months of 1945, many citizens fled or were killed. After the war, many surviving ethnic Germans were expelled and deported to the West when members of the pre-war Polish minority started returning. The city subsequently became part of Poland, as a consequence of the Potsdam Agreement . Polish settlers were recruited to replace the German population.


ArtAllm wrote:It was not a forcible annexation, because the population of this German province ALWAYS wanted the reunification with Germany.


Yeah, the German invasion of Poland was totally voluntary.

ArtAllm wrote:As we see, the non-German population of Poland was ALWAYS a small minority, and in any poll the majority of the population was ALWAYS in favour of reunification.

The German Wikipedia is even more outspoken:

The separation of Danzig from the rest of Germany was done without the approval of the population of this city. It was a violation of the principles, declared in Versailles.


Sure, but that also meant it stopped being part of Germany after the treaty was signed.

ArtAllm wrote:The population of Danzig was forcibly deprived of their German citizenship, that was immoral, and any party in the Weimar Republic promised their voters that it will fight for the reunification of Danzig with Germany.


And they were allowed to apply for it right after the city was founded as an autonomous state.

ArtAllm wrote:This policy was nothing special, it did not originate with the National Socialism. In fact, National Socialists had to follow the demands of the German people and adopt the policy of the Weimar Republic in this issue.


Indeed, but only the Nazis went to the extreme of invading it by force.

ArtAllm wrote:As already told, the reunification of Danzig with the rest of Germany was in the program of ALL German parties, there was a total consensus in this issue, this policy was not new.

That was the wish of German people. The German parties just represented the desires of German people for reunification.


Yet it doesn't change the fact that the invasion of Poland eventually proved to be against their interests if we follow your reasoning.

ArtAllm wrote:What to declaration of WWII by the UK, this was not the wish of the British people.


Really? It seems that the British public lost its confidence in the policy of appeasement following the Nazi occupation of Prague:

Toast wrote:Gallup Poll Shows Support for a War to Stop Hitler
16 Jul 1939

Hitler's occupation of Prague discredited appeasement in Britain. In the summer of 1939, a Gallup Poll showed that three-quarters of the British public believed it was worth a war to stop Hitler. Though Chamberlain himself had not lost all faith in his policy, he felt he had to respond to public opinion, and he responded to excess.


ArtAllm wrote:Well, Germany was dismembered after WWI and tried to reunite parts of its own territory.
The reunification of own territory is rational and moral, and this did not threaten the security or the interests of Great Britain.


Oh yes, aiming to reunite your territory is indeed understandable. Yet doing so by military means may lead you to lose a war like it happened to Germany.

Enforcing its own red lines was clearly a British interest, though.

ArtAllm wrote:The USSR and USA were the real rivals of Great Britain, not the Third Reich!

USSR pushed the World Revolution via the Comintern, and USA pushed for World Domination.


...And the Nazis had the Lebensraum.

ArtAllm wrote:It was predictable that a war against Japan would mean the end of the British Empire, because English colonies were threatened by Japan, and England was unable to protect them.


A war that Japan started.

ArtAllm wrote:As we see, it was easy to predict the future of Great Britain, and if Churchill's brain was not poisoned by alcohol, he would not have push for WWII even before he got the whole power.

Who could predict that Great Britain would behave so foolishly and start a World War with all the million of human losses, in order to get bankrupt and lose its empire?

If somebody is a rationally thinking person, then he expects that other people also behave rationally.

Do you understand what I mean?

Would you expect that somebody will kill himself, even if he has no need to do this, only because he has an irrational desire to harm you?

That is precisely what happened with Great Britain before WWII.


Funny, because that's precisely what one could wonder about what were the Nazis thinking when they invaded Poland and started the war. It certainly ended very badly for them and Germany.

ArtAllm wrote:Today Great Britain is just a joke, and even what was left of Germany after WWII has more significance in Europe, that the UK.


It is less of a joke than your arguments in this thread.

ArtAllm wrote:They tried after the WWII to starve about 20 Million Germans to death (Morgenthau Plan) and reduce Germany to an agrarian state, but then they realised that the death of Germany will lead to the death of Europe, because Germany is the motor of Europe and the European economy cannot exist without Germany.

So they abandoned their genocidal plan, and after the collapse of the SU the artificial separation of East- and West Germany could not be maintained any more. They had to permit the reunification of Germany and the re-creation of Slovakia, and agree that Czechoslovakia is an artificial creation that cannot survive without brutal force.

The German territories, that were ethnically cleansed by Poles and Soviets, are now backward provinces.

Königsberg is today a backward province of Russia, and so is Danzig and other former German cities and provinces.

Germany is today the motor of the EU, without German money Poland cannot survive, even with the ethnically cleansed German provinces. The same with the rest of Europe. If German taxpayer stops to pay, the whole project, called EU, will immediately collapse.


All thanks to a peaceful approach by the liberal Germans to their foreign policy, however.
User avatar
By ArtAllm
#14314166
wat0n wrote:So what? That doesn't make it German territory anymore than Israeli settlements in the West Bank are Israeli territory.


Danzig was the territory of Germany since the creation of modern Germany, dude.

There were no ethnic cleansing in Danzig!

The existing Baltic and Slavic population was assimilated, they became Germans because they accepted German culture, without any brutal force.

The wish of the population of Danzig was to reunite with Germany, period.

In Palestine Zionists committed ethnic cleansing, they used brutal force, they expelled the native population.

To compare the situation in Danzig before WWII to the situation in ethnically cleansed parts of Palestine, like West Bank, is pure idiocy.

wat0n wrote:Danzig was specifically left as a non-independent state by the Treaty of Versailles


That was against the wish of the population of Danzig.

BTW, the creation of Israel was also against the wish of the population of Palestine.

It was just brutal dictatorship, nothing else.

Neither the separation of Danzig from Germany nor the creation of Israel on the Palestinian land happened with the approval of the population of these regions, and this is the only similarity between the despotism of the western powers in Danzig and in Palestine.

wat0n wrote:Yeah, the German invasion of Poland was totally voluntary.


As already many times repeated, the Third Reich was ready to withdraw from Poland and pay reparations for the inflicted damage.

If Poland agreed to satisfy the wishes of the population of Danzig, there would be no need to invade Poland.

wat0n wrote:Sure, but that also meant it stopped being part of Germany after the treaty was signed.


They were forced to sign this treaty, they were not asked, if they want to separate from Germany.
That was against the principles, declared by the western powers.
That was brutal despotism.

wat0n wrote:Oh yes, aiming to reunite your territory is indeed understandable.
Yet doing so by military means may lead you to lose a war like it happened to Germany.


Well, the western powers ignored the wish of the population, they preferred despotism.
If a people is despotically subdued, then this inevitably leads to war.
But the western powers could prevent this war, if they wished.

wat0n wrote:Enforcing its own red lines was clearly a British interest, though.



No, it was not, because Britain was not threatened.

wat0n wrote:Funny, because that's precisely what one could wonder about what were the Nazis thinking when they invaded Poland and started the war. It certainly ended very badly for them and Germany.


As already many time repeated, it was no threat to the UK, and to start WWII was not the wish of the British people.

They started a World War that could have been prevented.

That was irrational behaviour, dictated by despotism.

UK started a war with Argentine because of some islands that are situated in the vicinity of Argentine, though there was no significant British population on Falkland Islands. It was just a relict of the Colonial Empire, but Brits were reluctant to give this island to Argentine!

Danzig was an old German city with a big German population, and this population was despotically prevented from reunification with Germany.

The hypocrisy and double standard is immeasurable!

A colonial power, that subjugated huge parts of territory on the other side of the world and brutally crushed any attempts of separation from UK despotically prevented German people from reunification!

That was immoral, and every decent person can see that!
By Rich
#14314177
layman wrote:So do I but only because the Nazis were so morally despicable. I don’t think the case is very strong from a real-politic perspective.

Even at that time it was clear that Britain’s position in the world was weakening and there was nothing that could be done about that.

If retaining the empire was an objective then Germany/Japan offered far more potential as allies than America/Russia.

This much is obvious. We know for a fact the both the Soviet Union and the USA wanted the end of the British empire as soon as possible. We can speculate that it would eventually be the same with the Nazis but we do not know if for a fact.
Htiler was a lunatic. Going to war in 1939 was lunacy. Its only incredible luck that makes it seem credible from the point of view of hind sight. The French and British had more troops. They collosally out powered Germany in Navy. They had more tanks, better tanks, more plane. The British had a strategic bomber force. The Germans had none. Germany had no ability to sustain a war. They couldn't produce the ammunition and the pare parts for any serious sustained fighting If the British and French geared and kept up the blockade within two or three years they could expect to crush Germany.

Even Germany's incredibly weak position was tenuous. They were dependant on Soviet raw materials and Swedish iron that could easily be cut off. Why in God's name should Britain have negotiated with Nazi Germany in 1939? Someone looney enough to go to war in 1939 in Germany's should hardly have been given an opportunity to expand. Should hardly be trusted with a bigger empire. Imagine if Hitler had got nuclear weapons.

Britain's empire was not under threat prior to May 1940. It was only the totally unexpected events of May 1940 that imperilled Britain's position and empire and left us at the mercy of the united States and the Soviet Union.

__________________________________

Once the French surrender things looked very different, but I say to the Nazis and Fascists, you just don't understand us Liberals. From what you Fascists and Nazis tell me everything comes down to an economic calculation. Hitler was just a super rational economic actor. A cautious man who only acted out of defensive prudence against Communism. You fascists and Nazis only think in material terms. We Liberals care about more than money. For us it wasn't about money. It wasn't about saving the empire. It wasn't even about saving the Czechs, or the Poles or the Jews. It was about honour. It was about pride. it was about Spirit. You fascists and Nazis only care about the bottom line and about petty humanistic concerns. As you've explained you fascists and Nazis will always avoid war and seek peace where ever possible. Similarly you fascists and Nazis will never understand what motivated the 300 at Thermopylae. It wasn't about some timid calculation of what was the best way to save the empire. It wasn't about the bottom line. You see we Brits were a warrior nation. When his majesty George VI heard that the French had surrendered what was his response?. Did he say oh dear our empire might be threatened? No he said "Thank God, Now we're alone!" With the perfidious French out all the more glory to us. It didn't matter whether we lost the Empire. ultimately it didn't even matter if we defeated Hitler. Because when we look back to that year after the French surrendered. When we and our Empire fought on alone. Even seventy years later we can say:

That was our finest hour!
By wat0n
#14314178
ArtAllm wrote:Danzig was the territory of Germany since the creation of modern Germany, dude.

There were no ethnic cleansing in Danzig!

The existing Baltic and Slavic population was assimilated, they became Germans because they accepted German culture, without any brutal force.

The wish of the population of Danzig was to reunite with Germany, period.

In Palestine Zionists committed ethnic cleansing, they used brutal force, they expelled the native population.

To compare the situation in Danzig before WWII to the situation in ethnically cleansed parts of Palestine, like West Bank, is pure idiocy.


Germany gave Danzig up after WWI, I don't see how it is idiocy. Oh wait, it actually isn't, Danzig wasn't part of Germany's territory just as much as the West Bank isn't part of Israel's territory

ArtAllm wrote:That was against the wish of the population of Danzig.

BTW, the creation of Israel was also against the wish of the population of Palestine.

It was just brutal dictatorship, nothing else.

Neither the separation of Danzig from Germany nor the creation of Israel on the Palestinian land happened with the approval of the population of these regions, and this is the only similarity between the despotism of the western powers in Danzig and in Palestine.


Sure. Yet that doesn't change the fact that it was the legal status of the city after WWI, which Germany accepted by signing the Treaty of Versailles.

ArtAllm wrote:As already many times repeated, the Third Reich was ready to withdraw from Poland and pay reparations for the inflicted damage.


After grabbing the land it wanted, you mean.

ArtAllm wrote:If Poland agreed to satisfy the wishes of the population of Danzig, there would be no need to invade Poland.


...And it would have been easier for both sides to do this by showing some flexibility, which neither side did.

ArtAllm wrote:They were forced to sign this treaty, they were not asked, if they want to separate from Germany.
That was against the principles, declared by the western powers.
That was brutal despotism.


Sure, but Germany separated from them.

ArtAllm wrote:Well, the western powers ignored the wish of the population, they preferred despotism.
If a people is despotically subdued, then this inevitably leads to war.
But the western powers could prevent this war, if they wished.


Germany could have prevented the war by not having an expansionist policy.

ArtAllm wrote:No, it was not, because Britain was not threatened.




You can't have a credible and effective foreign policy if you don't enforce your red lines and respect your agreements. Oh well, of course the Nazis didn't know much about the latter, but still.

ArtAllm wrote:As already many time repeated, it was no threat to the UK, and to start WWII was not the wish of the British people.


The poll I posted above would suggest otherwise.

ArtAllm wrote:They started a World War that could have been prevented.

That was irrational behaviour, dictated by despotism.


Indeed, Nazi despotism.

ArtAllm wrote:UK started a war with Argentine because of some islands that are situated in the vicinity of Argentine, though there was no significant British population on Falkland Islands. It was just a relict of the Colonial Empire, but Brits were reluctant to give this island to Argentine!


Actually Argentina invaded the Falklands, not the other way around.

ArtAllm wrote:Danzig was an old German city with a big German population, and this population was despotically prevented from reunification with Germany.


Germany gave it up when it signed the Treaty of Versailles.

ArtAllm wrote:The hypocrisy and double standard is immeasurable!

A colonial power, that subjugated huge parts of territory on the other side of the world and brutally crushed any attempts of separation from UK despotically prevented German people from reunification!

That was immoral, and every decent person can see that!


Sure it is, this is rich coming from someone who supported pre-WWII German expansionism
#14314445
ArtAlim wrote:It seems that you are unable to understand simple texts.

What exactly about your linked text actually disproves my argument? So far all you've done is point to supposed special archives the author is supposed to have had access to (unverified) and claimed the author was some kind of giant of history, which he clearly isn't.

ArtAlim wrote:What do you mean with "well regarded" historians? Do you mean those prostitutes who are on the payroll of the system?

So what you're telling me is you don't actually have any legitimate sources to back you up, and instead you'll cite a conspiracy theory to conceal this.

ArtAlim wrote:Godwin ++

You started with thread with a rant about Jews and essentially defending/excusing Nazi policy. You don't want Nazism or Hitler to be mentioned?

ArtAlim wrote:The question is very specific.

Actually it is pretty bloody vague. Lets look at it again:
Would the methods, applied in these trials, be legal in any civilized country?

So the first problem we encounter is there were multiple trials as you note. There were many defendants, different points of law and defenses involved in each and so on. Even the term 'civilised country' is imprecise - which countries would you consider civilised? Really if you have a specific objection to the Nuremberg Trials you ought to specify it because at the moment it sounds like you don't have one and are just trying to avoid admitting the evidence is pretty damning that Germany was not some wonderous liberator of the Slovaks.

ArtAlim wrote:If you have read this book, then you have to quote it to prove your claims.

Fine
Hitler wrote:Without consideration of traditions and prejudices, Germany must find the courage to gather our people and their strength for an advance along the road that will lead this people from its present restricted living space to new land and soil, and hence also free it from the danger of vanishing from the earth or of serving others as a slave nation. The National Socialist Movement must strive to eliminate the disproportion between our population and our area—viewing this latter as a source of food as well as a basis for power politics—between our historical past and the hopelessness of our present impotence.

No where does it say, as you claimed, that lebensraum was just a 'sphere of influence'. The stated purpose was to occupy land, particularly agricultural land.

So, where is your quote to the contrary, Art?

ArtAlim wrote:You basically agree that UK, USA and France were eager to start WWII, they were not interested in preventing WWII and saving the life of many millions of people.

No I don't agree with that, and your assumption is pretty flawed. First of all the US didn't set a 'red line' in Poland in 1939. The UK and France did, but they likely hoped Hitler would back down - in effect that war would be averted rather than triggered.

ArtAlim wrote:BTW, UK gave an ultimatum to the Third Reich, and the Third Reich unexpectedly agreed to the conditions of this ultimatum.

Your link to Wikipedia doesn't actually state Nazi Germany agreed and in fact notes that the deadline was reached and it was declared that the UK was at war with Germany. It also further notes a subsequent French ultimatum, that the Germans appear also to have ignored.

This subsequent item from another source:
Adolf Hitler advised the United Kingdom and France that he would withdraw from Poland if allowed to keep Danzig and the Polish corridor.

Just shows how misleading your claim is - the UK and France had already guaranteed Poland prior to these ultimatums. Ultimatums are not typically subject for negotiation. They certainly aren't when you are a power that has previously failed to adhere to agreements. The "I'll withdraw but let me carve up this country a bit in the process" clause was rubbish and Hitler would have been aware it wouldn't be accepted.

ArtAlim wrote:If the red line was already crossed, why this silly ultimatum?

Another vain attempt at avoiding war? Makes a lot more sense than in your argument - you would have it the UK was champing at the bit for war with Germany... and now you tell me they essentially gave Germany a second chance to back off?

ArtAlim wrote:And what about the promises of UK and France? Were these countries reliable partners?

Care to give an example comperable to the dismemberment of Czechoslovakia?

ArtAlim wrote:Everybody with half a brain can find out the percentage of opposition (less than 10%).

Anyone with half a brain knows that race etc. doesn't actually determine voting patterns

ArtAlim wrote:So you really believe that the opinion of 5% of Poles in Danzig was more important than the opinion of the German majority?

I was actually poking fun of your constant references to opinion in Germany about Danzig. So like you I ignored the population of Danzig so that I could talk about yet another neighbouring state. Like I say, there were a lot of Poles in Poland. Now in your world view that means they all would agree to the same things apparently.

ArtAlim wrote:He is quoting a lot of prominent historians.

Many of which, if you take their work in its totality, would not agree with his conclusions. So do I believe Pat Buchanan's selectively chosen quotes or his better qualified sources?

ArtAlim wrote:Danzig was not Poland, Danzig was German land, and the population of Danzig wanted the reunification of Germany.

It is idiotic to call voluntary reunification of two states into one states "land grab".

Was the Polish Corridor German land too?

ArtAlim wrote:It was in the interest of Germans who were killed by the Poles

Could you be more specific? I assume you are not referring to Germans killed in the course of the invasion, that would be totally ridiculous.
User avatar
By Heisenberg
#14314589
fuser wrote:1.There is absolutely no guarantee that Britain would had hold on to her Empire without an European war.

Obviously not, but by the 1930s, Britain had no army to speak of, and our air force consisted largely of biplanes. The only armed force we had that was any use was the Royal Navy, and that was primarily concerned with protecting the Empire. Declaring war when we did was absolute madness, as was shown by the abject humiliation at Dunkirk in 1940. We could have taken a more detached approach, started rearming properly, and if necessary, entered the war later on our own terms. What good was the Polish guarantee when we had no means (or intention) of following through with it? We essentially gave up our power of independent action to an Eastern European country whose interests were not aligned with ours. Why should Britain have cared about German expansion into Eastern Europe, where we've never had any substantial interests?

fuser wrote:2. There was absolutely no Guarantee that a Super Power Germany would not had looked at British Empire after neutralizing Poland and France. Even if Hitler liked Britain, that was not guaranteed with his successors.

If France hadn't declared war on Germany, there is no reason to believe it would necessarily have been invaded. France was not a serious threat to Germany, and German foreign policy was more concerned with Eastern Europe anyway.

fuser wrote:3. Fighting Germany 1939 would had been more easier than a superpower hegemonic Germany.

I think Britain did the right thing from the pov of their interests.

Britain didn't fight Germany in 1939. It declared war, with no intention of backing this up with action. Britain was in no position to fight Germany in 1939, and the declaration of war was the single greatest foreign policy blunder in its history (with the possible exception of entering the First World War, which is more or less equal on the stupidity scale). Germany would not have attempted to invade a neutral Britain, since (a) it would have no reason to do so, and (b) the English channel and the Royal Navy would render it impossible. This is why Operation Sea Lion was never seriously considered.
User avatar
By fuser
#14314637
Heisenberg wrote:Obviously not, but by the 1930s, Britain had no army to speak of, and our air force consisted largely of biplanes. The only armed force we had that was any use was the Royal Navy, and that was primarily concerned with protecting the Empire. Declaring war when we did was absolute madness, as was shown by the abject humiliation at Dunkirk in 1940


Britain also didn't had army comparable to either Germany and France in ww1 but yet they went on with it and it did played an important role. No one had expected such rapid collapse of French Army without that "Dunkirk" wouldn't had happened.

We could have taken a more detached approach, started rearming properly, and if necessary, entered the war later on our own terms. What good was the Polish guarantee when we had no means (or intention) of following through with it?


Polish Guarantee was for "deterrence", no one had really thought that Germany will be that naive to actually declare war on Poland despite that guarantee, not going through with that would had meant any such guarantees, deals by Britain with any other nation becoming void.
Rearming can be done during the period of war specially for an island nation like Britain as it happened in ww1.

Why should Britain have cared about German expansion into Eastern Europe, where we've never had any substantial interests?


Because any expansionist power like Germany during ww2 was a threat to Britain. If not exactly on 1st of September 1939 then in future. Better to deal with it while its easier to fight than in distant future.

If France hadn't declared war on Germany, there is no reason to believe it would necessarily have been invaded. France was not a serious threat to Germany, and German foreign policy was more concerned with Eastern Europe anyway.


Poland was also not a serious threat to Germany. Germany was hardly a rational actor in those times, it didn't mattered if France was a threat or not but Germany was a clear threat to France as she realized as every foundation of Versailles was slowly being dismantled. Who is to say that Germany wouldn't had attacked France for Alsace Lorraine specially without any Franco British alliance?

Britain didn't fight Germany in 1939. It declared war, with no intention of backing this up with action.


She did, no one expected a BEF in Poland not even Poland. What was expected was a French offensive which failed to materialize because of maginot complex.

Blockade of Germany.

Britain did what she could.

Germany would not have attempted to invade a neutral Britain, since (a) it would have no reason to do so, and (b) the English channel and the Royal Navy would render it impossible.


Yes, in 1940s. But after war with Poland and France is over and Germany is sitting over most of Europe, who is to say she couldn't beat Britain in naval race in 50s?


I think the problem discussing these issues is that we tend to make many of our arguments which can only be made with hindsight which was not available to people making decisions in their time.
User avatar
By Heisenberg
#14314660
fuser wrote:Polish Guarantee was for "deterrence", no one had really thought that Germany will be that naive to actually declare war on Poland despite that guarantee, not going through with that would had meant any such guarantees, deals by Britain with any other nation becoming void.

I'm sorry, but I disagree profoundly here. Germany and Britain both knew that Britain had no means of enforcing the guarantee, rendering any "deterrence" obsolete. You can't deter people if you have nothing to back up your threats.

fuser wrote:Rearming can be done during the period of war specially for an island nation like Britain as it happened in ww1.

Yes, but rearming without having declared war gives you much more flexibility and sovereignty, and allows you to survey the situation properly before committing yourself to action.

fuser wrote:Because any expansionist power like Germany during ww2 was a threat to Britain. If not exactly on 1st of September 1939 then in future. Better to deal with it while its easier to fight than in distant future.

Again, I must ask how expansion into Eastern Europe was a threat to Britain. Britain had no territories/colonies in Eastern Europe, and no substantial strategic of commercial interests there in 1939. It is also not "easier" to fight an enemy when you have no effective army to fight with. Britain has never really been a continental power, and Germany has never really been a global power - there is no reason to assume that there would necessarily be any collision between the two countries.

fuser wrote:Poland was also not a serious threat to Germany.

I didn't say it was. Germany had the specific aim of reclaiming Danzig from Poland, though. Germany wasn't as irrational as is often believed - we tend to assume Hitler was a complete maniac, when he was more of an opportunist. Even if Germany was a threat to France, that doesn't justify a declaration of war from an obvious position of weakness: all that does is leave you open to attack.

fuser wrote:Yes, in 1940s. But after war with Poland and France is over and Germany is sitting over most of Europe, who is to say she couldn't beat Britain in naval race in 50s?

I think the problem with this is that it assumes that the invasion of France was a given. What if France hadn't declared war in 1939? What reason would Germany have had to invade? France's army was entirely defensive, Alsace and Lorraine were covered by the Maginot Line, and Germany's territorial aims lay in the East. If Germany had gone on to attack France later, then a declaration of war might be justified. All I'm saying is that declaring war in the specific circumstances in 1939 was a mistake. That isn't to say that it would never have been right to declare war though. As for a naval race - if we'd stayed out, and focused on rearmament, it would have been easily enough to deter an invasion of Britain. Britain's naturally very difficult to invade successfully, and there was no rational reason for Germany to want to invade, had we stayed out of the war in 1939 - especially since, as I said before, British and German strategic interests lay in completely different spheres.

fuser wrote:I think the problem discussing these issues is that we tend to make many of our arguments which can only be made with hindsight which was not available to people making decisions in their time.

I agree with this. However, there is a lot that's taken for granted with the Second World War, particularly in Britain, that shouldn't be. I must admit that I can't bear the cult of Winston Churchill and the "Finest Hour", because it's led Britain to make a lot of stupid foreign policy mistakes in more recent years - from Suez to Iraq.
User avatar
By fuser
#14314669
Heisenberg wrote:I'm sorry, but I disagree profoundly here. Germany and Britain both knew that Britain had no means of enforcing the guarantee, rendering any "deterrence" obsolete. You can't deter people if you have nothing to back up your threats.


As they failed to deter but that doesn't mean that Polish Guarantee was not for deterrence. What was it for then?

Beside that obviously Britain could had fought off Germany (if nothing else then starving it out) as they did but not on Polish Ground.

Yes, but rearming without having declared war gives you much more flexibility and sovereignty, and allows you to survey the situation properly before committing yourself to action.


And your enemy can also grow stronger during that period, Britain was more comfortable because it was an island nation and rearming was far more comfortable issue for her than any other continental power.

Again, I must ask how expansion into Eastern Europe was a threat to Britain. Britain had no territories/colonies in Eastern Europe, and no substantial strategic of commercial interests there in 1939.


Germany with her expansion in eastern Europe was a threat to UK. Its not necessary that Britain must have direct interest in east European territories, it was about stopping Germany to grow much stronger given the experiences of ww1 for Britain.

It is also not "easier" to fight an enemy when you have no effective army to fight with. Britain has never really been a continental power, and Germany has never really been a global power - there is no reason to assume that there would necessarily be any collision between the two countries.


Much of the fighting as in ww1 was supposed to be done by French Army, it wasn't expected at all that France will collapse so rapidly. As I said this is all with only hindsight.

I didn't say it was. Germany had the specific aim of reclaiming Danzig from Poland, though


I never claimed you said that. My point was France being no threat to Germany has no bearing on my argument as Poland was not threat to Germany too.

we tend to assume Hitler was a complete maniac, when he was more of an opportunist. Even if Germany was a threat to France, that doesn't justify a declaration of war from an obvious position of weakness: all that does is leave you open to attack.


I agree brushing off Hitler as maniac is just intellectually lazy. But breaking munich pact and invasion of Poland imo was irrational.

Then, in September of 1939 militarily France was more powerful than Germany on Ground whilst joint Franco British power was far more superior than Germany. War was hardly declared from position of weakness. The fact they failed to take advantage of it is another matter and yet again I feel this argument also comes from hindsight.

I think the problem with this is that it assumes that the invasion of France was a given. What if France hadn't declared war in 1939? What reason would Germany have had to invade? France's army was entirely defensive, and Germany's territorial aims lay in the East.


Germany also had territorial claims on west in form of Alsace Lorraine. And yes it was not given that she would attack west but it was indeed a possibility. Why take the risk? When enemy can be defeated while its still weak and will only grow stronger with time and the time has given you perfect opportunity to take moral high ground and justify this war.

As for a naval race - if we'd stayed out, and focused on rearmament, it would have been easily enough to deter an invasion of Britain. Britain's naturally very difficult to invade successfully,


Oh, with this I agree. An invasion of Britain was not possible by any world power during that era but a naval race did had occurred in recent past (pre ww1) and it didn't went well with Britain then too.
User avatar
By Heisenberg
#14314684
fuser wrote:As they failed to deter but that doesn't mean that Polish Guarantee was not for deterrence. What was it for then?

I accept that it was intended to be a deterrent, but it was still essentially a bluff (and an unwise one).

fuser wrote:And your enemy can also grow stronger during that period, Britain was more comfortable because it was an island nation and rearming was far more comfortable issue for her than any other continental power.

Again, I must stress that none of this explains why a declaration of war was necessary - if anything, all it does is remove the element of surprise when you are ready to fight.

fuser wrote:Germany with her expansion in eastern Europe was a threat to UK. Its not necessary that Britain must have direct interest in east European territories, it was about stopping Germany to grow much stronger given the experiences of ww1 for Britain.

I'll accept that this was the thinking at the time, but I'm still puzzled as to why this was the case. After all, there was nothing to suggest Germany had any particular desire to confront Britain. Nothing that Hitler had said or done prior to September 1939 indicated any intention to attack Britain, and in fact it would have been completely irrational for him to have done so - there was no direct conflict of interests.

fuser wrote:I never claimed you said that. My point was France being no threat to Germany has no bearing on my argument as Poland was not threat to Germany too.

I don't believe the two situations are comparable. Germany had a direct and specific interest in the invasion of Poland - the reclaiming of Danzig. It is irrelevant that Poland wasn't a threat. I don't believe it had any such interest in attacking France, as long as France wasn't a direct threat. Since Alsace-Lorraine (the only conceivable territorial aim for Germany in France at the time) was heavily defended by the Maginot Line, there doesn't seem to be any reason why Germany would have attacked France without the French declaration of war.

fuser wrote:Then, in September of 1939 militarily France was more powerful than Germany on Ground whilst joint Franco British power was far more superior than Germany. War was hardly declared from position of weakness.

I think it depends on our definitions, really. While France might have been superior militarily to Germany (is this really the case?), its army was entirely directed towards defensive capabilities. A declaration of war is an assertive action, and is unnecessary if your aim is purely defensive, as France's was. I don't believe they ever intended to attack Germany (as proved to be the case), rendering the declaration of war somewhat pointless. I must say though that I think you're overestimating British military power at the time - the whole policy of appeasement came from the recognition that Britain's armed forces were not capable of fighting a continental war.
User avatar
By fuser
#14314709
Heisenberg wrote:Again, I must stress that none of this explains why a declaration of war was necessary - if anything, all it does is remove the element of surprise when you are ready to fight.


I have given other reasons as well, it was combination of all those factors. A Britain rearming rapidly wouldn't had gone unnoticed, element of surprise was not going to be a game changer in any meaningful way.

I'll accept that this was the thinking at the time, but I'm still puzzled as to why this was the case. After all, there was nothing to suggest Germany had any particular desire to confront Britain. Nothing that Hitler had said or done prior to September 1939 indicated any intention to attack Britain, and in fact it would have been completely irrational for him to have done so - there was no direct conflict of interests.


Not in 1939 but who would had guaranteed such in 1950? If Hitler liked Britain, who would guarantee about his successor or a new non nazi regime? A Germany expanded into Eastern Europe was always a threat to Britain specially given her recent experiences irrespective of present regime having no design on Britain.

I don't believe the two situations are comparable. Germany had a direct and specific interest in the invasion of Poland - the reclaiming of Danzig. It is irrelevant that Poland wasn't a threat. I don't believe it had any such interest in attacking France, as long as France wasn't a direct threat. Since Alsace-Lorraine (the only conceivable territorial aim for Germany in France at the time) was heavily defended by the Maginot Line, there doesn't seem to be any reason why Germany would have attacked France without the French declaration of war.


Germany neither hesitated violating Belgium neutrality in ww1 or ww2. Maginot line was never a problem. Germany did had territorial claim on France though and Britain and France were rightly pragmatic about it.

I think it depends on our definitions, really. While France might have been superior militarily to Germany (is this really the case?), its army was entirely directed towards defensive capabilities. A declaration of war is an assertive action, and is unnecessary if your aim is purely defensive, as France's was. I don't believe they ever intended to attack Germany (as proved to be the case), rendering the declaration of war somewhat pointless. I must say though that I think you're overestimating British military power at the time - the whole policy of appeasement came from the recognition that Britain's armed forces were not capable of fighting a continental war.


In absolute terms France was indeed superior but they were held hostage by Maginot mentality.
Beside Britain was never able to fight a continental war on her own since "100 years war" that has always been the case. British strength was her navy and that was the case in 1939 too.
By Rich
#14314783
Heisenberg wrote:After all, there was nothing to suggest Germany had any particular desire to confront Britain. Nothing that Hitler had said or done prior to September 1939 indicated any intention to attack Britain, and in fact it would have been completely irrational for him to have done so - there was no direct conflict of interests.
There was nothing to suggest that Hitler desired a confrontation with Holland or Greece, but he still over ran them. In fact Hitler's alliance's with Italy and Japan made a future confrontation highly plausible. The fact is that Hitler mad e a deal with the British, French and Czechs in 38 and broke it. He made a deal with Poland in 1934 and later attacked them. He made pact with the Soviet union and then attacked it.

Allowing Hitler to build up a substantial military economic base and then relying on Hitler's good will would have been absolutely stupid for Britain. Britain and France should have gone on to the offensive in September 1939. There was however logic behind there defensive strategy. Germany had spent most of WWI on the western front on the defensive and preserved resources by doing so. Germany had far better protection and conditions for its men than the allies. The allies never invested as heavily in their trench systems because they never planned to stay in them for long.

The early stunning blitzkrieg victories of Germany in Poland, the Lowlands and the Soviet Union should never have happened. Proper use of relatively cheap anti tank guns, defence in depth and mobile fire-fighter reserves shuld make break thorough all but impossible without huge advantage in material and men. This is what happened. Allied advances later in the war were made with huge amounts of air-power and artillery barrage. It should be noted that in 1944 in the Ardennes the Germans had huge local superiority, but failed to make large gains. Brtian and France in 1939 could expect to comfortably cope with a long war. Hitler on the other hand went to war out of desperation. The war economy was unsustainable. Germany would have had to cut back on its military build up. Germany's war economy was to a large degree only sustained by a succession of resource / Gold grabs: Austria, Czechoslovakia, Poland, Denmark, Norway, the Low countries and France.

France and Britain on the other hand had plenty of scope in September 1939 to ramp up their war economies and armed forces. They calculated not unreasonably that they only had to contain Germany for a couple of years and then they could easily crush them.
Last edited by Rich on 17 Oct 2013 09:46, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
By Heisenberg
#14314866
I'm pretty sure I never said anything about "relying on Hitler's good will", Rich. Please don't make strawman arguments. Also, I'd love to hear how Britain and France could supposedly have "gone on the offensive" when Britain didn't have an army, and France's was tied up in the Maginot Line.

Just to give a rough idea of the position Britain and France were actually in in 1939, here's Churchill himself after the Polish Guarantee in March 1939 (emphasis mine):

Winston Churchill wrote:And now, when every one of these aids and advantages has been squandered and thrown away, Great Britain advances, leading France by the hand, to guarantee the integrity of Poland – of that very Poland which with hyena appetite had only six months before joined in the pillage and destruction of the Czechoslovak State. There was sense in fighting for Czechoslovakia in 1938 when the German Army could scarcely put half a dozen trained divisions on the Western Front, when the French with nearly sixty or seventy divisions could most certainly have rolled forward across the Rhine or into the Ruhr.

But this had been judged unreasonable, rash, below the level of modern intellectual thought and morality. Yet now at last the two Western Democracies declared themselves ready to stake their lives upon the territorial integrity of Poland. History, which we are told is mainly the record of the crimes, follies, and miseries of mankind, may be scoured and ransacked to find a parallel to this sudden and complete reversal of five or six years’ policy of easy-going placatory appeasement, and its transformation almost overnight into a readiness to accept an obviously imminent war on far worse conditions and on the greatest scale. Moreover, how could we protect Poland and make good our guarantee? Only by declaring war upon Germany and attacking a stronger Western Wall and a more powerful German Army than those from which we had recoiled in September, 1938.

Here was decision at last, taken at the worst possible moment and on the least satisfactory ground, which must surely lead to the slaughter of tens of millions of people. Here was the righteous cause deliberately and with a refinement of inverted artistry committed to mortal battle after its assets and advantages had been so improvidently squandered. Still, if you will not fight for the right when you can easily win without bloodshed; if you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance of survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than live as slaves.

Like I have said, it may have been necessary to enter the war later, on more favourable terms (i.e. having rearmed). However, after appeasement (which, given the condition the country was in following WW1, was not actually an unreasonable policy), and under the conditions in 1939, declaring war was stupid. I believe this was shown by our prompt and embarrassing defeat at Dunkirk less than a year later, which has absurdly been turned, in the public imagination, into a "victory". Of course, when we actually did start fighting, we were bankrupt, under the command of a foreign power, in an alliance with a country that we had previously considered an enemy, and had utterly failed to preserve the independence of Poland.
User avatar
By fuser
#14314875
some points :

1. waiting for completion of rearmament would not had guaranteed any more favourable terms/conditions. Germany would had grown stronger during that period too.

2. A joined Franco British Military still outmatched and outnumbered Germany in 1939.

3. Dunkirk was not lost because of unpreparedness of Britain or France but rapid collapse of France due to various reasons.
#14315002
In the 1930s France would never trust Germany and conversely Germany would never trust France. It's inconceivable that France would do nothing faced with an expansionist Germany regardless of whether German priority was the east. Hence, German military strategy always involved neutralising the French threat. Hitler himself knew, and said as much as early as the 20s, that it would be necessary to deal with France before attacking the Soviet Union. Even without a declaration of war by France at the time Germany would have expected France to exploit any German weakness.

Apart from Elsass-Lothringen it should be noted that Hitler is known to have called Burgundy a German province, too. One of the richest and most beautiful German provinces, in fact.
By pugsville
#14315172
Hitler and Nazi Germany was an state set of expansion by the use of armed force and was massively expanding it's armed forces. It had shown with invasions of it's it's neighbours, in Austria and Czechoslovakia. It had consisted refused to honur it's agreements for even the brief amounts of time. It was a rogue heavily armed state that could not be trusted. France and the UK wanted a status quo where changes were done by negotiation, that had bent over backwards to Hitler to avoid war, and see some changes to the post ww1 settlement, but Hitler demands were becoming more strident and extreme. He would not settle down and act reasonably.

Poland it was not that Danzig was important or really mattered to the British and French, it was the principle of negotiation versus demands and armed force, They quite clearly draw a red line, a line in the sand saying they were done with letting Hitler used threats and armed force.

If Hitler and Germany had brought up Danzig for discussion before Austria, Czechoslovakia, they may well have gotten a good hearing,

Ireland joins South Africa in the charges of genoc[…]

Israel-Palestinian War 2023

Everything is good here, @wat0n :)

Sounds like perfect organized crime material ex[…]

Commercial foreclosures increase 97% from last ye[…]