Political Interest wrote:There are ways of resolving border disputes without resorting to war. Furthermore border disputes can condinue for years without a full scale manifestation of hostilities, the Sino-Soviet split is an example of this.
- There wouldn't be a short term solution.
- It would still be a struggle when there are two sides are unwilling to compromise.
- It's especially difficult if both sides have already fought over said border within living memory.
- And at least one of the political leaders came to power promising to restore all that was lost, national pride etc.
I might point out the Sino-Soviet split was not simply a border dispute, but that armed conflict on that border did take place. Your example actually suggests conflict might have been inevitable between ideologically incompatible parties involved in a border dispute...
Political Interest wrote:Danzig could have been considered an eventual objective and taking it could be relegated to an extremely long term project. It would be possible to maintain domestic legitimacy without having to go to war.
On the contrary it would have been very hard for Hitler to justify shelving the restoration of Danzig to:
- More radical Nazis.
- The old guard who represent a powerful bloc in the military (many even had aristocratic ties in the East...).
- The more nationalist segments of the population, especially those who lost their homes when the border changed in the 1920s.
The Nazi party came to power because it promised a lot to key interest groups. You seem to think they could just wave this off at the drop of a hat without consequences.
Especially when the pay off is a possible alliance with the West, which might not even eventuate. Even with the benefit of hindsight it's hard to imagine a full alliance between Nazi Germany, Britain and France. The Stresa Front didn't get much support for comparison.
Political Interest wrote:No, I am saying they should have been more careful and instead of trying to achieve all of their objectives through a war should have instead placed them into the extreme long term and geared a pragmatic foreign policy towards their realisation.
Nothing you've suggested provides a concrete means of achieving any Nazi goals, long term or not. Your argument is still "Nazis shouldn't go to war because war is bad", rather than any actual analysis. How exactly does becoming an ally of the West gain Danzig? Poland is a Western ally too, all joining the alliance does is set Germany inside a framework where expansion is out of the question. Does it really need to be pointed out that it was the Western powers in the first place that supported the formation of Poland, and would probably have supported Poland in any future dispute for purely pratical reasons?
Political Interest wrote:Why did the Soviet Union not just invade Western Europe or use outright military force in the Cold War? It was because it was dangerous to do so. Similarly war for the Germans put too much at stake.
What nonsense:
1. It's not clear that annexation of Western Europe was a goal of the Soviet Union.
2. Even if it was a goal, inheriting a bombed out wasteland wasn't a desireable outcome. In this way even if the Soviets could convince themselves war could be successful, it clearly wasn't the best means to achieve the objective.
3. The balance of forces during the Cold War was quite different than for Nazi Germany and its neighbours in 1939. The Soviets and their allies were matched against an equally large and fairly well equipped opposing alliance. Nazi Germany on the other hand had successfully rearmed by 1939 and everyone else was scrambling to catch up. So indeed, the Soviets may have thought an attack a poor choice since it carried a great risk, in the same situation Nazi Germany could be forgiven for believing that their goals were easily achievable in the face of weak opposition. And historically, they were completely right up until about 1941, two years later.