Why did WWII happen ?

Reiben said:
What was the terms of the guarantee? Was it specific to an aggressor ie Germany?

Well the 'Polish-British Common Defence Pact' was specifically aimed at any agression by Nazi Germany towards either country. Given how far away Poland was from Britain though, there were clearly other reasons for signing this pact.

Anyway, the pact did not cover any attack by the Soviet Union, so I think it would be interesting to see what the British response would have been to any such attack.
 
Doppleganger said:
Well the 'Polish-British Common Defence Pact' was specifically aimed at any agression by Nazi Germany towards either country. Given how far away Poland was from Britain though, there were clearly other reasons for signing this pact.quote]

I reckon you'll have to look in the corner of geopolitics. Germany had already gained the Rhineland, Austria and Sudetenland. At that time the article written by Sir Halford John Mackinder, a renowned British geographer, about the "The Geographical Pivot of History" was widely accepted. The statement made by hime was:

Who rules East Europe commands the Heartland
Who rules the Heartland commands the World-Island
Who rules the World-Island commands the world



The British politicians couldn't afford to sit this one out at home. I mean there are elections to be one, and some believe that you have to be "manly" once in a while to do so.
 
Ted said:
"I reckon you'll have to look in the corner of geopolitics. Germany had already gained the Rhineland, Austria and Sudetenland".


My response:

(1) The Rhineland is Germany. Berlin could hardly "gain it".

(2) Austria was Hitler's native country. As an Austrian, he "gained" Germany instead. The Austrians furthermore applauded Anschluss. The unification of Germany, as it was understood in the 1930s, merely represented an acceptance of a core plank of League of Nations policy -- that proclaiming the right of national sovereignty.

(3) The same is true of the Sudetenland. The former province of the Austrian Empire was composed nearly completely of German-Austrians. It was absorbed by Prague as a reward for Czech military participation against the Central Powers during WWI. [Why is it that Alsace-Lorraine is viewed as a major moral issue when most central and eastern European countries had countless similar cases?] The Czech state in 1918 was actually a bizarre amalgamation that reflected the ethnic composition of the Austrian Empire. There were 6 million Czechs, 3 million Slovaks, 1.5 million Germans, and various other groups including Poles, Hungarians, Ruthenians, etc. If you believe in national sovereignty, then the Sudetenland belonged to Germany or Austria or Germany-Austria or Austria-Germany or maybe even Austria-Germany-most of Switzerland. If you do not believe in the right of national sovereignty, then you can hardly use the argument against Germany and argue that Posen was Polish, or Schleswig Danish or even Lorraine as French.

There is also one really important point concerning Munich. When Chamberlain sold Prague down the river, other countries later participated in Hitler's "land grab". Poland negotiated for a piece of the pie, Hungary got a small share, and the Slovaks, who generally felt themselves oppressed by the Czechs, agitated for the status of German protectorate. The Czech state imploded. Why? Another artificial Versailles construction bit the dust. Yugoslavia imploded in 1941 and again in the 1990s. Why? The Allied politicians repeatedly ignored eastern/central European demographic and cultural realities.

Conclusion: As can be seen from these examples, it is cynical to argue that (1) the Rhineland, (2) Austria, or (3) the Sudetenland represented serious breaches of international norms or conduct. They represented a repeal of the Versailles treaty that the western Allies sanctioned. Remember that Paris and London killed remaining German reparations, agreed to German rearmament as long as it was controlled (British-German naval agreement) and in fact understood why Berlin wanted Anschluss and the Sudetenland.

In a geopolitical sense, Paris and London knew why Germany wanted Danzig and the corridor, Upper Silesia and other post-WWI territorial losses. How could German politicians and strategists be expected to stomach the fact that Prussia was cut off from the rest of Germany? If you argue that the German population and government had no right to return Europe to pre-November 1918, how can you logically argue that Allied politicians originally had the right to cut it up in the first place. If you decide that POWER is the issue here, then I agree with you. I in fact see no other alternative solution.

The most important realization: As mentioned, you can argue that the carving up of the Czech state represented a crime. But Hungary, Poland and the independent Slovak government become equally guilty. They all got their piece. Poland, since it was later carved up by Hitler AND Stalin, becomes a repeat of the Czech demise.

Primary Conclusion: The motor of European political decisions, then and now, remains naked power pursuits. Nobody really "started" WWI or WWII or any war for that matter. Governments see the world differently from others and opt for war when other means fail. Primary interests move policy. London could not stomach the idea of a resurgent Germany (either under Hitler or probably even Ghandi). Ideology, morality, etc. only play marginal roles. Whitehall opted for war in 1939 to combat the idea of German expansion. Geopolitical? Probably. A moral defence of Poland? Come on.

Ollie Garchy.
 
Last edited:
[You guys are keeping me busy, I hope the boss continues to leave me alone for a while.]

A few more responses:

(1) The German "invasion" of Norway (like that of the Balkans) was reactive. One of the central themes in "just war" research is the Anglo-French plan for cutting off German Swedish iron ore imports. Churchill, for example, sponsored the invasion of neutral Norway to permit operations aimed at isolating Sweden. Hitler, owing to German industrial dependency on Swedish iron ore, was forced to respond or face certain ruin. The issue for the moralists is how Britain and France could countenance the invasion of Norway? This is a big issue for some people. Nobody today argues that "Fall Gelb" was expansionist. It was reactive.

[The Balkans was very similar. Yugoslavia was originally an ally of Nazi-Germany. The Pan-Slavists disliked the arrangement, sponsored a successful coup in Spring 1941, and declared war on Germany. Hitler, who feared that the action might interfere with Romanian oil shipments, and who was no longer amused by Mussolini's adventure in Albania-Greece, was forced to respond. The Pan-Slav declaration of war represented a similar fiasco for the Allies. That Tito threw Serbia into a crushing civil war/partisan operation also represented a true tragedy for the region.]

(2) [Not a response, but a point] The Anglo-French forces also invaded Belgium in summer 1940. Why? The French remembered WWI and desperately wanted to avoid fighting on French soil. They did not necessarily want to save Belgium. It was also disastrous. The move forced the Anglo-French forces to leave "inner lines" and establish new positions in what was believed the main German axis of attack. It complicated battle operations for the Allies, hindered the formation of a strategic reserve, and subjected the troops to wear and tear. This politically-inspired strategy, like Churchill's invasion of Norway, led directly to France's defeat and prolonged the war against Hitler. It represents one of the most stupid military decisions of all time (it was afterall political).

(3) What was the relative importance of Poland for the western Allies? None. Without any real industrial infrastructure, only 20 million people, and few natural resouces, the German occupation of the country did not enhance Hitler's war machine. The absorption of the Czech republic (considering the industry of the German-Austrian Sudetenland) did matter as everyone knows. Did the Germans use Polish aircraft or tanks or even artillery? No. Did the Germans use anything but Polish sausages? No. Why then enter a WORLD WAR against a major regional/ world power over sausages? It makes no military or geopolitical sense whatsoever. Again, political issues are another story altogether.

My Conclusions/Hypotheses:

(1) Why WORLD WAR in 1939? It was NOT a world war. [Unless of course you believe that western/central Europe is the world] The British historian Michael Howard, another example of the really wise people, in an interesting essay wrote that the period 1939-1941 reflected a European war that Germany won. Hitler then changed into ideological-mode and started WWII in 1941. He invaded the USSR and declared war on the USA. The European war, my hypothesis, was started by Paris-London in the manner of a preventive war that totally backfired. Hitler's WWII backfired even worse.

(2) Poland "started" WWI because it was directly responsible for the Nazi-Soviet Pact of August 1939.

(a) Polish-Russian and Polish-German relations were always bad for longterm historical reasons. Prussia and Russia (with Austria) had carved up Poland a few hundred years prior to 1939 and the Poles generally wanted independence.

Germany had a large Polish population (I think about 3 million) prior to 1918 that was generally treated like the Scots, Welsh or Irish in Britain at the time. Ie. like colonial subjects. The same was true in the Russian region of rump Poland where the majority of Poles lived. During WWI, all sides tried to bring the Poles on board with promises of this land or that land or these borders.

The Poles, hardly content after the generous territorial concensions given at Versailles, were swept by nationalist fervour after 1918 and literally went overboard. Hastily organized troops collected Russian equipment and invaded (1) Germany, (2) the new Soviet Union, and (3) even annexed the capital of Lithuania (todays capital was not the capital back then).

The Soviets and Germans [alas, not the poor Lithuanians. They just took Memel from Germany instead. The Lithuanian government however got nervous after Hitler took power in 1933 and gave it back.] responded even though hampered by civil war and the consequences of WWI military defeat. German Freikorps troops successfully defended the German frontier. Trotsky's Red Army countered a real Polish invasion and battled the Poles near Kiev in the early 1920s. The new Polish state still counted millions of Germans, Ukrainians, White Russians and Hungarians, etc. The problem of national sovereignty would fuel the outbreak of war in 1939.

The Germans treated Poles poorly after 1918. This point is correct and often stated. Berlin generously believed that Poland was an artificial state, wanted a return to 1914, made life hard for the Polish economy, etc. From the German perspective, the Polish government however also proved a real pain in the ass for a variety of reasons: (1) there was rampant persecution of those Germans who remained in the ceded areas (farmers, etc.), (2) the attempt to extort favourable trade conditions using the threat of a anti-German whiplash, and (3) open Polish plans (actual operations) during the 1920s and early 1930s to invade Germany. Many Poles considered East Prussia an artificial state and wanted to annex the region up to today's borders. There was REAL tension and there were REAL problems. All of these problems led directly to the Nazi-Soviet decision to return Poland to 1914 by getting rid of it.

Policymakers in London never could understand the context of Nazi policy because they only thought in selfish geopolitical terms. Why? Because all policymakers in every country do this. The Poles were selfish, Stalin was selfish, and Hitler was REALLY selfish. In brief, it does not take a genius to understand that British policy in 1939 did not take the history of central Europe into account, or German-Polish tensions, or the aims of other powers. London switched from an earlier stance and suddenly pronounced the borders of Versailles sacred.

They could of course do this. But independent actions by Britain or London are NOT holy. They were not backed by the League of Nations, or the United States, or China, or Africa, or Asia, or South America or even most of Europe.

It was a uniquely stupid unilateral response to a contained regional crisis that dragged western/central Europe into a war against Hitler that Europe could not win without the Soviet Union. Europe in fact lost this war. It is purely cynical and false to argue that Britain and France believed they could bring Stalin into the fold at some later date.

Ollie Garchy
 
Last edited:
Ted said:
"We could also turn it around. If Germany would have invaded Poland, do you think England would have declared war?...... I don't think so, do you?"

I think you mean if Poland invaded Germany. Since Polish paramilitary forces invaded Germany after 1918, we know that the policymakers in London and Paris did not care. They actually protested that the German Freikorps troops resisted and did not lay down their arms.

As for war-mongering, Pilsudski (the dictator of Poland) travelled through Europe in the early 1930s (before January 1933) and tried to drum up support for an invasion of Germany.

Ollie Garchy
 
Ollie Garchy said:
I think you mean if Poland invaded Germany.

I typed that post in a hurry (also an inquisitive boss wanting to know what I was doing...:))
What I meant was: would England would have declared war on Germany in 1939 if Germany would not have invaded Poland on the 1st of September? I personally don't think so.

Secondly, I reckon it is save to call WWII a worldwar in '39. Since Brittain covered a quarter of the globe, France had large portions of the world and Germany had it's colonies..... Of course it is very arbitrary because there was no "hot conflict" in the colonies, but governmental wise there was a war in these regions.
 
Ted said:
I typed that post in a hurry (also an inquisitive boss wanting to know what I was doing...:))
What I meant was: would England would have declared war on Germany in 1939 if Germany would not have invaded Poland on the 1st of September? I personally don't think so.

Secondly, I reckon it is save to call WWII a worldwar in '39. Since Brittain covered a quarter of the globe, France had large portions of the world and Germany had it's colonies..... Of course it is very arbitrary because there was no "hot conflict" in the colonies, but governmental wise there was a war in these regions.
Well Great Britain would have needed a pretext for declaring war. They wouldn't have just declared war without some kind of pre-condition being broken. Otherwise they would have looked quite bad in the eyes of the international community. Poland just happened to be the pre-condition and as Olllie rightly pointed out the British (or French) in reality didn't give two hoots about what happened to Poland or her people.

I don't think the war went Pan-European until Hitler declared war on the USA. It could be argued that had Hitler not embarked on this rash course, the Pacific Theatre would have remained a seperate conflict. I also don't think you can argue that because Britain and France controlled large overseas colonies it was a 'world-wide' conflict. Most of those colonies were at peace, even when the Japanese started hostilities in 1941.
 
Many people consider the Japanese invasion of China in 1937 as a starting point of WWII.

I see a lot of good points made by Ollie G.
The history is written by the victors.
 
(2) Poland "started" WWII because it was directly responsible for the Nazi-Soviet Pact of August 1939.
Clap-trap.
Germany was responsible for WWII because she invaded Poland.

Germany doesn't invade Poland, no war.

You can find as many reasons as you want for why Germany would wish to attack Poland, but the fact Germany did, despite knowing what her actions might lead too, means Germany bears the responsibity for starting the conflict which later became WW2.
Morale of this story.
If you don't want war, don't invade other nations with your army.
 
redcoat said:
Clap-trap.
Germany was responsible for WWII because she invaded Poland.

Germany doesn't invade Poland, no war.

You can find as many reasons as you want for why Germany would wish to attack Poland, but the fact Germany did, despite knowing what her actions might lead too, means Germany bears the responsibity for starting the conflict which later became WW2.
Morale of this story.
If you don't want war, don't invade other nations with your army.

Initial Qualification: I am not trying to suggest that the Nazi invasion of Poland was a good thing, a wise course of action, or the only alternative for Berlin. I am trying to point out that the events of September 1939 were far more complex than normally presented. There is one problem in particular that is often overlooked -- the Nazi "blending" of traditional or normal political aims with their other crazy views. If you accept the type of argument that I am presenting, it is possible to understand why many Germans (like the normal Prussian conservatives) were blinded by Hitler. It is then also possible to explain how difficult it was for the Allies to understand the true scope of Hitler's plans.

My Response:

(1) "You can find as many reasons as you want for why Germany would wish to attack Poland, but the fact Germany did, despite knowing what her actions might lead too, means Germany bears the responsibity for starting the conflict which later became WW2."

This view is a slight adaptation of the normal thesis, and I am thankful that you at least recognize German grievances. I in fact agree with you to a certain point. Paris-London warned Hitler not to attack Poland. [I think it was a week prior to the German invasion.] Hitler moved forward irregardless.

Hitler's actions in the final week before war demonstrate a couple of points, however. Hitler seemed quite nervous and worried about initiating a European war. Stalin however helped him out. By agreeing to the partition of Poland during consultations between Molotov and Ribbentrop, Stalin altered the balance of power in central Europe. Hitler then moved forward because (a) diplomacy had made a two-front war unlikely, (b) Poland faced impossible odds and would quickly collapse, (c) and Hitler speculated that the Anglo-French decision was political and would not have any military consequences on the western front. He was correct. The Allied declaration of war did not have any really tragic consequences for Germany. [The wars against the USA and USSR did].

(2) I have to ask this question (nobody else does): was Germany's declaration of war "illegal" or a flagrant rejection of international law?

The Allied judges asked this question at Nuremberg after the war. The lawyers came armed with documents to prove it. Their case (like a lot of the Nuremberg trial, but certainly not those elements concerned with atrocities or the holocaust) was hilarious. I will not go into the details. [The major problem for the Allies was the Nazi-Soviet Pact of August 1939. I have tried to point out this paradox]. For Godsakes, the Americans invaded Iraq three years ago using nothing more than one single excuse (WMD and only later "regime change"). The Germans had many more: (a) protecting German civilians, (b) regaining their territory, (c) and they were part of a coalition of major powers involved in the action.

(3) "Morale of this story. If you don't want war, don't invade other nations with your army."

This is untrue. The story should read differently. Germany should not invade other countries. Most other states can. There are so many examples as to boggle the mind.

Ollie Garchy
 
Ollie Garchy said:
(3) "Morale of this story. If you don't want war, don't invade other nations with your army."

This is untrue. The story should read differently. Germany should not invade other countries. Most other states can. There are so many examples as to boggle the mind.

Ollie Garchy

This is playing the victime a bit. The "everybody-can-do-it-so-why-can't-we" would be fair if it was a tabula rasa situation. But Germany had displayed an agressive foreign policy for quite some time. You know that you'll get special attention in the end and you can't go on too long. I rather stick to the theory that Germany overplayed it's hand on this occasion and it cost her dearly.
 
A Critique of Vincent J. Esposito's "The War in Brief" (Part 01)

Vincent J. Esposito Colonel, United States Army Head, Department of Military Art, United States Military Academy http://gi.grolier.com/wwii/wwii_1.html

This post attempts to spell out the problems surrounding WWII origins in a simple and straightforward manner. I decided to take a barebones synopsis of the argument by Vincent J. Esposito and show why nearly every paragraph is flawed, distorted, or outright incorrect. Esposito's argument is in my opinion the one teachers offer young people at school. The structure of my post is simple. I cite a paragraph and then demonstrate the weaknesses.

My again refined thesis now reads: London and Paris chose to declare war on Hitler's Germany during the first days of September 1939 and officially unleashed what later became known as WWII. The western Allies used the German invasion of Poland as the pretext to initiate a preventive war. The governments of Britain and France quite simply aimed at preventing the further development of German geostrategic power. The two states wanted to contain the Hitler menace. [This menace does not mean the following: (1) German rearmament was illegal, (2) German actions in the Rhineland, Austria, Sudetenland, Czechoslovakia or Poland were evil or dangerous or illegal, or (3) that the Allies cared about the previous points.] They declared war in 1939 to stop Hitler from fulfilling his dreams of empire. [Declaring war is not necessarily a bad thing, guys] Poland was unimportant...a pretext. Poland was never freed. Stalin simply altered the Nazi-Soviet Pact and took all of it under his control.

(A) Para 01: "At the end of World War I the victorious nations formed the League of Nations for the purpose of airing international disputes, and of mobilizing its members for a collective effort to keep the peace in the event of aggression by any nation against another or of a breach of the peace treaties. The United States, imbued with isolationism, did not become a member. The League failed in its first test. In 1931 the Japanese, using as an excuse the explosion of a small bomb under a section of track of the South Manchuria Railroad (over which they had virtual control), initiated military operations designed to conquer all of Manchuria. After receiving the report of its commission of inquiry, the League adopted a resolution in 1933 calling on the Japanese to withdraw. Thereupon, Japan resigned from the League. Meanwhile, Manchuria had been overrun and transformed into a Japanese puppet state under the name of Manchukuo. Beset by friction and dissension among its members, the League took no further action".

Esposito cites the League of Nations to set the tone of his little paper. He writes that the League was devoted to the "collective effort to keep the peace". The League Charter spells it out slightly differently. The group wanted to "promote international co-operation and to achieve international peace and security". Nobody takes issue with the need for peace. But the Charter's emphasis was on creating the conditions for peace and not just one of military reaction.

The problems arise elsewhere. Esposito points out that (1) the United States was not a member and (2) that the group was ineffectual in Manchuria. What he does not tell the reader is that the League of Nations' membership list was very limited. The group of nations did not include Germany, the Soviet Union, the United States, or Japan by the end of the 1930s. The League therefore did not have any real coercive capabilities or the legal right to bind non-members to their own whims.

(B) Para 02: "In 1933 also, Adolf HITLER came to power as dictator of Germany and began to rearm the country in contravention of the provisions of the Treaty of Versailles. He denounced the provisions of that treaty that limited German armament and in 1935 reinstituted compulsory military service. That year the Italian dictator Benito MUSSOLINI began his long-contemplated invasion of Ethiopia, which he desired as an economic colony. The League voted minor sanctions against Italy, but these had slight practical effect. British and French efforts to effect a compromise settlement failed, and Ethiopia was completely occupied by the Italians in 1936".

Hitler first of all did not begin rearming until over one year later and rearmament during the early phase was geared to the expansion of civilian industries. We can dismiss this little factual error. Esposito glosses over one important issue, however. Global disarmament existed as one of the prerequisites or official excuses for keeping Germany disarmed. During the 1930s, at the disarmament talks in Geneva, the League participants discarded this policy and held onto the right to produce aircraft and other weapons systems. German diplomats (this policy was developed prior to Hitler) raised the point that the unwillingness to disarm invalidated the Versailles Treaty. They then left the conference and the League itself. The League had reneged on a primary condition of their own policy. German rearmament was therefore NOT illegal. Hitler rescinded the Versailles Treaty (using the pretext that the Allies had failed to fulfill their obligations) and then pursued outright rearmament. Esposito should have concentrated on Hitler's aims and not try to trick his reader into believing a lie.

Esposito is also instinctively placing German rearmament on the same level as the Japanese invasion of Manchuria or the Italian invasion of Ethiopia. That trick is a farcical ploy often used by historians. He also forgets to mention the Polish invasion of the Soviet Union in 1919, the Lithuanian attack on Germany (Memel) in 1923 at the height of the Ruhr crisis (where the French invaded the Ruhr once again), The Polish seizure of Wilna from the Lithuanians after WWI, etc.
 
Last edited:
A Critique of Vincent J. Esposito's "The War in Brief" (Part 02)

(C) Para 03: "Alarmed by German rearmament, France sought an alliance with the USSR. Under the pretext that this endangered Germany, Hitler remilitarized the Rhineland in 1936. It was a dangerous venture, for Britain and France could have overwhelmed Germany, but, resolved to keep the peace, they took no action. Emboldened by this success, Hitler intensified his campaign for Lebensraum (space for living) for the German people. He forcibly annexed Austria in March 1938, and then, charging abuse of German minorities, threatened Czechoslovakia. In September, as Hitler increased his demands on the Czechs and war seemed imminent, the British and French arranged a conference with Hitler and Mussolini. At the Munich Conference they agreed to German occupation of the Sudetenland, Hitler's asserted last claim, in the hope of maintaining peace. This hope was short lived, for in March 1939, Hitler took over the rest of Czechoslovakia and seized the former German port of Memel from Lithuania. There followed demands on Poland with regard to Danzig (Gdansk) and the Polish Corridor. The Poles remained adamant, and it became clear to Hitler that he could attain his objectives only by force. After surprising the world with the announcement of a nonaggression pact with his sworn foe, the Soviet Union, he sent his armies across the Polish border on Sept. 1, 1939. Britain and France, pledged to support Poland in the event of aggression, declared war on Germany two days later".

I have writen enough about these points. The remilitarization of the Rhineland only meant placing German troops on German soil. The Austrians generally applauded union with Germany. Hitler took over Czechoslovakia along with Hungary and Poland. And Memel was a German city since the 15th Century...a city that was willingly returned to German control by the Lithuanian government. Memel is particularly important here because it demonstrates Esposito's need to rewrite history in order to create a particular slant. None of these actions appear violent or in the spirit of Lebensraum. It takes a particular twisted bias to view them this way.

The German invasion of Poland represented Hitler's first really aggressive move. I have already listed the German reasons for attacking Poland. It is just interesting to note the treatment of the Soviet Union. Esposito really plays down the dangerous Soviet involvement in 1930s European international relations. He forgets to note the massive Soviet rearmament of the 1930s (as if the Germans were the only ones), how Stalin played Germany and France against each other (a very easy thing), forgets about the secret protocol of the Nazi-Soviet Non-Agression Pact that divided Poland (a plain attempt at colouring the facts), and...take a look at the next paragraph. It is just classic.

(D) Para 04 and 05: "As the Germans ravaged Poland, the Russians moved into the eastern part of the country and began the process that was to lead to the absorption in 1940 of Latvia, Estonia, and Lithuania. They also made demands on Finland. The recalcitrant Finns were subdued in the Winter War of 1939-1940, but only after dealing the Russians several humiliating military reverses.

Meanwhile, Japan had undertaken military operations for the subjugation of China proper, and was making preparations for the expansion of its empire into Southeast Asia and the rich island groups of the Southwest Pacific. Mussolini watched the progress of his fellow dictator, Hitler, while preparing to join in the war at a propitious moment".

What can I write about this portrayal? The Germans "ravaged" Poland. The Soviets only "absorbed" it. Stalin in fact only "made demands". Esposito's words tell us more about what he thinks than the points listed. In other words, Stalin represented a legitimate state with legitimate aims. He later writes the following about the Cold War: "friction over the treaties with Austria, Germany, and Japan and Soviet aggressive designs in eastern Europe brought increasing tension, and by the end of 1948 their relationship could be considered one of cold war". "Friction"? "Aggressive designs"? Esposito refutes his entire little essay in the last sentence: "The cold war between the East and West continued thereafter, with the Communists striving for world domination through subversion and infiltration, and the West seeking to frustrate their designs". Nothing more needed here.

[A note: The "War in Brief" is followed by larger sections that address the issues in greater detail. Esposito is not really as dumb as the picture I paint above...just totally biased].

[A question: I hope that these long posts are acceptable in this forum? I like these threads, I type fast, and I have too much spare time at the moment].
 
Holy smokes Olly, could you put a seperate post with the extract of these enormous posts? I am at work and people tend to notice when my screen goes black because of a huge text..... I'll read through it when I get home.
 
Ollie Garchy said:
[A question: I hope that these long posts are acceptable in this forum? I like these threads, I type fast, and I have too much spare time at the moment].

Long posts are good IMO. Gives me a bit more to get my teeth into and like you, I tend to go into the detail of things more than some others who post.

Keep 'em coming. :)
 
Ollie Garchy said:
)
(2) I have to ask this question (nobody else does): was Germany's declaration of war "illegal" or a flagrant rejection of international law?
The only nation that Nazi Germany ever declared war on was the USA.
In all other cases,with the exception of Britain and France who declared war on her, she attacked without warning.
 
Last edited:
redcoat said:
The only nation that Nazi Germany ever declared war on was the USA.
In all other cases,with the exception of Britain and France who declared war on her, she attacked without warning.

True. But the attack list is small. Think about the following cases:

1. Canada, Australia & Colonies. (Declared war around Sept 1939)
2. Yugoslavia (Declared war on Germany in 1941)
3. Greece (Already at war with Italy)
4. The "End of the War" cases (Former allies & the entire planet in 1945)

The countries Germany "attacked" include two types:

1. Poland (open aggression)
2. Denmark/Norway (reaction to Br/Fr moves ie. strategic)
3. Luxemburg, Belgium, Netherlands (strategic decision)
4. Soviet Union (open aggression)

It is remarkable that the "aggression" list (Poland/USSR) is so small considering the prewar/wartime/postwar illusion and myth that Hitler wanted world domination (defined as physical possession).

The list is important. Geoffrey Stoakes wrote a good argument a decade or so ago about the subject. It is as good as any. He argues that Hitler sought to create an empire in Europe. An empire is a political entity that can exert a tremendous amount of power on the periphery. (ie. the Soviet Union during the Cold War or the United States today).

The events of the war, as seen by many people today, lead to an incorrect interpretation of Hitler's war aims. It all goes back to the view that the militarization of the Rhineland represented something sinister.

All of this was, however, sinister from the perspective of those groups impacted by Nazi ideology. This does not mean that the Allies fought the war to save the Slavs from subjugation or the Jews/Gypsies/Homosexuals from extirpation.

Ollie Garchy
 
Ollie Garchy said:
Hitler's actions in the final week before war demonstrate a couple of points, however. Hitler seemed quite nervous and worried about initiating a European war. Stalin however helped him out. By agreeing to the partition of Poland during consultations between Molotov and Ribbentrop, Stalin altered the balance of power in central Europe. Hitler then moved forward because (a) diplomacy had made a two-front war unlikely, (b) Poland faced impossible odds and would quickly collapse, (c) and Hitler speculated that the Anglo-French decision was political and would not have any military consequences on the western front. He was correct. The Allied declaration of war did not have any really tragic consequences for Germany. [The wars against the USA and USSR did].

This is exactly the same point made by V. Suvorov(Rezun)!
In his book "Icebreaker" he states that Stalin has won the WWII in 1939 by provoking Hitler to become an agressor...
 
boris116 said:
This is exactly the same point made by V. Suvorov(Rezun)!
In his book "Icebreaker" he states that Stalin has won the WWII in 1939 by provoking Hitler to become an agressor...
Kindly explain how coming to a secret agreement with Germany on the carve up of Eastern european nations, 'provoked' Hitler.
If you read Mein Kampt, you would realise he didn't need any provoking.
 
Back
Top