Cause Of WWII

[Kitsune]

Relocated discussion from another thread.

Post by a_very_ex_STAB:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kitsune

But despite what he seems to belive neither Germany nor Japan started the war to "conquer of world", or wanted the "unconditional surrender of the USA". In Germanys case, the war, even the one against Poland, was absolutely unpopular with the population. And the war against France and Britain was even more so. But then it was declared by the French and British governments, so it was quite easy for the Nazi government to claim the role of the defender. Ah, well.)


That's BS. Hitler knew very well when he invaded Poland that Britain and France would have to get involved. They had formal alliances with Poland and had given commitments to come to the aid of the Poles if Poland was attacked.

As for the war not being popular in Germany that is BS too. It only became 'unpopular' when Germany started losing. I don't recall any plots by the Wehrmacht on Hitler's life when they were winning that is for sure.

[Kitsune]

Post by Kitsune:

It's not BS.

1)The war, even against Poland WAS unpopular with the overwhelming majority of the Germans. Who told you otherwise, is lying or clueless. Hitler's popularity dropped sharply every time a war became more likely, and extremely so after September 1st 1939. It's true. (And there were plans by Wehrmacht officers to assassinate Hitler in 1939. But after Elser's nearly successful bombing attack on the "Führer" in Munich, security was upgraded and the plans were dropped). That the opposition to Hitler became stronger and stronger the more badly the war was going isn't that surprising, isn't it? Would the British people behave differently?

It is true that Hitler's popularity grew again, after the defeat of France. Extremely so, in fact. Because:

a) The Germans enjoyed the victory over a nation that had massively humiliated them for nearly two decades. (And which people would not have in their situation?)

b) Simple relief: the massive bloodshed that was expected had not happened and the war seemed to be over. That added greatly to the euphoria. And Hitler could say: "See? I told you so. Everyone who said that I would not know what I am doing was wrong...once again."

Therefore, Hitler was indeed on the height of his popularity in Summer 1940.


2)Hitler did expect that France and Britain would NOT intervene if he attacked Poland. The reason: He had a non-aggression pact with the Soviet since August the 23rd. What's more: the Soviets insisted on a distribution of Eastern Europe, with the line running right through Poland. Which clearly meant: "If you attack Poland we support you. But we want our share." And in this situation, with Germany and the Sovietunion co-operating, it seemed not so unlikely that France and Britain would not do anything. What should they do? Fight against Germany and the Sovietunion at the same time? But here Hitler miscalculated. When the Wehrmacht attacked Poland, Stalin did nothing at first. France and Britain declared war against Germany only. Then, two weeks later, the Soviets invaded Poland...and France and Britain did nothing. One month later, they even started to negotiate with Stalin, trying to get him on their side. Essentially, they were ready to sell the Eastern part of Poland as early as early as October 1939. If that does not fit in with your assessment of a good and just war for the freedom of humanity in general or Poland in particular, I am sorry. But that is what happened.

[Kitsune]

Post by a_very_ex_STAB:

As for Britain supposedly negotiating with the Soviet Union in Oct 1939. Has it not occurred to you that Britain made a hardheaded decision that Poland was already effectively a lost cause by that stage and was trying to find a way to put a wedge between Germany and Russia instead in order to prevent the Russians sending oil supplies to Germany. We're devious bastards you know.
You seem to have forgotten that Britain got to an advanced stage of planning to send troops to Finland to fight against the Russians at that time as well (of course that plan got over taken by more urgent priorities in the west).
I never said it was a good and just war for the freedom of humanity but it was a good and just defence of the UK and that's all that matters from our point of view. I honestly couldn't give a f*ck how many German civilians died as a consequence of us in Britain being forced to defend ourselves.

[Kitsune]

(Beginning of "live" discussion...)

a_very_ex_STAB wrote:
I honestly couldn't give a f*ck how many German civilians died as a consequence of us in Britain being forced to defend ourselves.
Britain was not "defending itself". Simply because was never Germany's, not even Hitler's intent to attack it (or France). It started the war against Germany, not the other way round (as did France). Allegedly for the freedom of Poland. Britains (and France's) behaviour in the time after they had declared war, however, suggest that they were more fighting for their own power interests.

And as far as you giving a f*ck is concerned...I for example wouldn't give a damn if you were run over by a car.
Does that make me a bad person? p-)

[a_very_ex_STAB]

a_very_ex_STAB wrote:

Quote:
I like digressing and I can't be arsed to start a new thread.
I like digressing, too. So, here you go: http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums...=1#post1304030 (http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?p=1304030&posted=1#post1304030)


Kitsune wrote:

(That one has to do everything oneself...*sigh*)

You sound just like my wife when you say that!

[jedisponge]

a_very_ex_STAB wrote:

Quote:
I like digressing and I can't be arsed to start a new thread.
I like digressing, too. So, here you go: http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums...=1#post1304030 (http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?p=1304030&posted=1#post1304030)


Kitsune wrote:

(That one has to do everything oneself...*sigh*)

You sound just like my wife when you say that!

Are you poking fun, or in some form demeaning, your wife?

[a_very_ex_STAB]

(Beginning of "live" discussion...)

a_very_ex_STAB wrote:
Britain was not "defending itself". Simply because was never Germany's, not even Hitler's intent to attack it (or France). It started the war against Germany, not the other way round (as did France). Allegedly for the freedom of Poland. Britains (and France's) behaviour in the time after they had declared war, however, suggest that they were more fighting for their own power interests.

Oh yeah Kitsune cry me a river with your revisionist view of Germans as history's victims in WW2. Hitler knew what the consequences of invading Poland would be but he still went ahead with it. That made Germany (not France and Britain) the aggressor whether you like it or not. If Britain was so dead set against Germany then how come the British government did nothing against Hitler when he remilitarized the Rhineland in 1936? We could legitimately have gone to war over that but didn't. You're going to be telling me how Hitler admired the British so much and we'd all have got along swimmingly if only us nasty bloodthirsty Brits had left you alone to gobble up all of central and eastern Europe. Bollocks to that.


And as far as you giving a f*ck is concerned...I for example wouldn't give a damn if you were run over by a car.
Does that make me a bad person? p-)
Whatever. Who cares either way

[Pvt.Anderson]

(Beginning of "live" discussion...)

a_very_ex_STAB wrote:
Britain was not "defending itself". Simply because was never Germany's, not even Hitler's intent to attack it (or France). It started the war against Germany, not the other way round (as did France). Allegedly for the freedom of Poland. Britains (and France's) behaviour in the time after they had declared war, however, suggest that they were more fighting for their own power interests.

I have to agree with that

[Kilgor]

Actually, Hitler thought the declaration of war over poland was a bluff by the british and french. He had gotten away with so much in the past and the allies hadnt stirred, but this time it was far too much for them to take. Its just a shame they didnt lift a finger to help poland, and by the end of the war the poles had lost the most per head of population and were still living under a dictatorship

[Kilgor]

You're going to be telling me how Hitler admired the British so much and we'd all have got along swimmingly if only us nasty bloodthirsty Brits had left you alone to gobble up all of central and eastern Europe. Bollocks to that.



Actually, Hitler did admire the brits for their white race global empire. One of the reasons he thought that germany deserved their own colonies such as what brits had. And im in no way defending the man.

[Atlantic Friend]

Actually, Hitler did admire the brits for their white race global empire. One of the reasons he thought that germany deserved their own colonies such as what brits had. And im in no way defending the man.

And there were many prominent British leaders, like Lord Cadogan, who thought Britain would be better off severing ties with France and Belgium in order to pursue a strategic alliance with Nazi Germany.

Had Hitler not absorbed the rest of Czechoslowakia in march 1939 and rattled his saber in Danzig, in blatant disdain of the Munish agreements, who knows if Chamberlain would not have survived as PM, and would not have approved such an alliance ?

[a_very_ex_STAB]

And there were many prominent British leaders, like Lord Cadogan, who thought Britain would be better off severing ties with France and Belgium in order to pursue a strategic alliance with Nazi Germany.

Had Hitler not absorbed the rest of Czechoslowakia in march 1939 and rattled his saber in Danzig, in blatant disdain of the Munish agreements, who knows if Chamberlain would not have survived as PM, and would not have approved such an alliance ?
Was Lord Cadogan the Prime Minister. No. Lots of people believed all kinds of daft things then and now.

As for Chamberlain. He knew that war with Germany was going to be inevitable. He just wasn't stupid enough to do it after the Munich debacle because he knew Britain would have lost in 1938. He was buying time to introduce conscription, speed up rearmament, increase the efficiency of British agricultural production, build Spitfires and train pilots to fly them and introduce the world's first radar based integrated air defence system. All because he knew that sooner or later we would have to defend ourselves against Germany's aggression.

Lets cut the crap from the German side here. Britain and France went to war with Germany after Germany invaded an ally (Poland). This was not an isolated unprovoked act of aggression from Britain and France but a response to a pattern of behaviour by Germany over several years.

1936 - remilitarization of the Rhineland (in contravention of the Versailles treaty)
1937-39 - direct intervention in the Spanish Civil War (note in Western Europe) which secured victory for Franco's fascists. This mean't that France now had borders with Fascist regimes on 3 sides (Germany, Italy and Spain)
1938 - annexation of Austria and invasion of Czechoslovakia.
1939 - invasion of Poland.

Are you Nazi apologists starting to see a pattern emerging here?:roll:

Then of course in 1940 there were the invasions by Germany of neutral Belgium, Netherlands, Denmark and Norway.

[a_very_ex_STAB]

Actually, Hitler did admire the brits for their white race global empire. One of the reasons he thought that germany deserved their own colonies such as what brits had. And im in no way defending the man.

Hitler said all kinds of daft things if he thought he could flatter someone or gain some advantage. He was a pathological liar and fantasist. Hardly someone who could be believed. Do you believe he really mean't that? Would you bet your country's future on a statement like that from someone like him. I don't think so.

[Kilgor]

:roll:

fine, to put it very simply the main belligerent in ww2 was germany.

But there are very many more complex reasons as to why men like hitler was able to find such fertile ground in germany to rise up.

[Atlantic Friend]

Was Lord Cadogan the Prime Minister. No. Lots of people believed all kinds of daft things then and now.

I don't think I ever alluded Lord Cadogan was the PM...and I was just pointing out an historical fact. And while lots of people indeed beleived lots of daft things then, I tend to think that the particular beliefs of an influential Cabinet member were of more consequence for Great Britain than those of a cab driver.


As for Chamberlain. He knew that war with Germany was going to be inevitable. He just wasn't stupid enough to do it after the Munich debacle because he knew Britain would have lost in 1938. He was buying time to introduce conscription, speed up rearmament, increase the efficiency of British agricultural production, build Spitfires and train pilots to fly them and introduce the world's first radar based integrated air defence system. All because he knew that sooner or later we would have defend ourselves against Germany's aggression.

Man, I never said Chamberlain was some kind of Hitlerite mole ready to precipitate England into Fascism. I'm just saying Chamberlain's government did ponder the merits of a strategic alliance with Nazi Germany. To Chamberlain's credit, he was duly incensed at Hitler's betrayal of his own word, and acted accordingly when it was Poland's time to be in Nazi crosshairs.


Lets cut the crap from the German side here. Britain and France went to war with Germany after Germany invaded an ally (Poland). This was not an isolated unprovoked act of aggression from Britain and France but a response to a pattern of behaviour by Germany over several years.

1936 - remilitarization of the Rhineland (in contravention of the Versailles treaty)
1937-39 - direct intervention in the Spanish Civil War (note in Western Europe) which secured victory for Franco's fascists. This mean't that France now had borders with Fascist regimes on 3 sides (Germany, Italy and Spain)
1938 - annexation of Austria and invasion of Czechoslovakia.
1939 - invasion of Poland.

Where on earth have you seen in my posts that I support the theory of an innocent Third Reich deliberately attacked by envious neighbors ? Nazi Germany was a monstrous regime whose end could not happen a minute too soon. France and Great Britain had every right to declare war on Germany in September, 1939 - in fact they had the absolute DUTY to do so, as they both had guaranteed Poland's territorial integrity.


Are you Nazi apologists starting to see a pattern emerging here?:roll:

Are you calling me or Kitsune Nazi apologists ? :cantbeli:


Then of course in 1940 there was the invasions by Germany of neutral Belgium, Netherlands, Denmark and Norway.

Plus the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg.

[a_very_ex_STAB]

@Atlantic Friend

For the record. No I was not referring to you as a Nazi apologist.

[ElHombre]

But there are very many more complex reasons as to why men like hitler was able to find such fertile ground in germany to rise up.

i had one history teacher who opined that WW1 and 2 were the same war, the combatants just needed 20 years to rest and start fighting again.

[stonecutter]

i had one history teacher who opined that WW1 and 2 were the same war, the combatants just needed 20 years to rest and start fighting again.


There wouldn't have been a WWII if Germany had been properly crushed at the end of WWI, and the Versailles Treaty had been harsher and/or properly enforced by the Allies. Germany should have been first of all soundly defeated on the battlefield (so that the German people afterwards wouldn't have been under the illusion that they didn't lose the war but were instead stabbed in the back by their politicians), and then broken up piecemeal into pre-Bismark states. Letting the wounded beast simply crawl back to its lair was just asking for trouble.

(no offense intended to my German friends. This has nothing to do with today. There are 6 surviving French WWI combat veterans left, and one of them interviewed a couple months ago for Remembrance Day said that one of the most beautiful and precious things he's seen in his life is the Franco-German friendship that exists between the two countries today. Long may it continue.)

[tsuri]

There wouldn't have been a WWII if Germany had been properly crushed at the end of WWI, and the Versailles Treaty had been harsher and/or properly enforced by the Allies
There would not have been a WW2 if the Treaty would not have been abused by the french as a humiliation of germany.

The French were unable to defeat Germany and acted like very bad winners.
A clear defeat of Germany would have been a better position but a treaty like this and even a destruction of the german national state would have triggered ww2 for absolute certainity. The German patriotism would have grown only stronger with the Nation divided.

Sorry a_very_ex_STAB but Hitler was absolutely in Love with England.
Alliance Negotiations were held until the last minute. He called the English his "Natural Allies".
An Alliance was of course not desireable for the English but in Hitler´s view of the World, the English and the Germans were supposed to fight the Soviets together.

[a_very_ex_STAB]

There would not have been a WW2 if the Treaty would not have been abused by the french as a humiliation of germany.

The French were unable to defeat Germany and acted like very bad winners.
A clear defeat of Germany would have been a better position but a treaty like this and even a destruction of the german national state would have triggered ww2 for absolute certainity. The German patriotism would have grown only stronger with the Nation divided.

Sorry a_very_ex_STAB but Hitler was absolutely in Love with England.
Alliance Negotiations were held until the last minute. He called the English his "Natural Allies".
An Alliance was of course not desireable for the English but in Hitler´s view of the World, the English and the Germans were supposed to fight the Soviets together.
@Tsuri

I agree entirely about the Versailles treaty being too harsh towards Germany. It's hard to really assess whether WW2 could have been avoided by more leniency on the part of Britain and France post WW1 though because 'what-if ' scenarios are always problematic.
As for the possibility of an alliance or an 'understanding' with Nazi Germany I don't really think that was a realistic possibility post 1938.

[stonecutter]

There would not have been a WW2 if the Treaty would not have been abused by the french as a humiliation of germany.
The French were unable to defeat Germany and acted like very bad winners.


Unlike Germany, which was left intact after the war, northern France was left completely destroyed, and her mining industry was sabotaged by retreating German troops. Reparations were definitely in order. Germany was humiliated by the Treaty because they weren't defeated on the battlefield, and felt that they should have been treated as equals during negotiations. In 1870, Prussian troops marched in victory along the Champs-Elysees. In 1918, German troops paraded in Berlin and were treated as heros. This never should have been allowed to happen.
The Treaty of Versailles was no harsher on the Germans than the Treaty of Frankfurt 1871 was on the French. The French paid up and moved on. Making the reparations payments could have easily been handled by the German economy -- and in fact very few payments were made in the end. You're right -- the problem was the Germans were humiliated for reasons outlined above, and this is what led to trouble down the line. But don't blame the French. The only thing the French did wrong was accept peace in 1918, instead of agreeing with General Pershing that nothing short of total victory on German soil would suffice. But after 1.3 million KIA, can you blame them.

[tsuri]

In 1918, German troops paraded in Berlin and were treated as heros. This never should have been allowed to happen
The only German Troops to have a Parade in 1918 were the ones from Africa. The only troop to remain undefeated.


Reparations were definitely in order
Reparations were justified. Versailles was everything but mere Reparations.


no harsher on the Germans than the Treaty of Frankfurt 1871
I disagree

Treaty of Frankfurt 1871: Return of Elsaß and a Part of Lothringen (annexed by France 1648)
Payment of 5 Billion(English Billion) Francs

Treaty of Versailles:


Territorial
Other provisions included the loss of the German colonial empire and loss of some territories Germany had annexed or conquered in the relatively recent past:
Alsace-Lorraine The territories (with a majority German population) which were ceded to Germany in accordance with the Preliminaries of Peace signed at Versailles on February 26, 1871, and the Treaty of Frankfurt of May 10, 1871, were restored to French sovereignty as from the date of the Armistice of November 11, 1918. (area 14,522 km², 1,815,000 inhabitants (1905)),
Northern Schleswig including the German-dominated town of Tønder in Schleswig-Holstein, after the Schleswig Plebiscite, to Denmark (3,228 km² or 3,938km²),
most of Greater Poland ("Provinz Posen") and Eastern Pomerania (West Prussia) that Prussia had conquered in Partitions of Poland was given back to the reborn Polish state after Great Poland Uprising (area 53,800 km² 4,224,000 inhabitants (1931) including 510 km² and 26,000 inhabitants from Upper niger),
Hulczyn area of Upper Silesia to Czechoslovakia (316 or 333 km² and 49,000 people),
East part of Upper Silesia, after plebiscite, to Poland (area 3,214 km² 965,000 people)
the area of German cities Eupen and Malmedy to Belgium
the area of Soldau in East Prussia (railway station on the Warsaw-Gdansk route) to Poland (area 492 km²),
Northern part of East Prussia as Memelland under control of France, later transferred to Lithuania,
plebiscite in Eastern part of West Prussia and in Southern part of East Prussia Warmia and Masuria, few villages to Poland,
the province Saarland under the control of the League of Nations for 15 years, after that a plebiscite between France and Germany,
the city of Danzig (now Gda?sk, Poland) with the delta of Vistula river at the Baltic Sea was made the Freie Stadt Danzig (Free City of Danzig) under the League of Nations and partial Polish authority (area 1893 km², 408,000 inhabitants 1929).

Military:
The German Army was to be restricted to 100,000 men, there was to be no conscription, no tanks or heavy artillery and no German General Staff. The German Navy was restricted to 15,000 men and no submarines while the fleet was limited to six battleships (of less than 10,000 tonnes), six cruisers and 12 destroyers. Germany was not permitted an air force (Luftwaffe). Finally, Germany was explicitly required to retain all enlisted men for 12 years and all officers for 25 years, so that only a limited number of men would have military training.


Reparations NOT Included.

[stonecutter]

This might be an interesting book -- has anyone read it?

http://www.wzip.uakron.edu/hfrance/reviews/blatt.html

[roland]

France didn't wanted the Versailles treaty: France wanted to crush Germany, annex the left side of the Rhin, split the rest in independant states, restore the old alliance with Bavaria, plunder, rape and burn the rest, and go. Garantee: no WWII after that.
But no, Wilson wanted it easy and was horrified by American littlle losses. He accepted the armistice proposed by the Germans despite he wasn't allowed to then imposed it to the Brits threatening to do a separate peace with the Germans.
Then the French had no choice but to accept the armistice.
But the Prussian teeth needed to be broken. Unfortunatelly you don't break teeth with a treaty: you break teeth with a kick in the mouth while your enemy is on the ground.
So what to do ? let it go while 1/3 of France looked like the surface of the moon in more bloody while Germany didn't had a single window broken because of the war ? if a politician had proposed that he would have been hanged presto. And not only in France, in Britain too.
So ? so there was no choice, Versailles was unavoidable because of Wilson.
The original mistake lies to this sissie of Wilson.

[roland]

And for those who were too much influenced by Nazi propaganda and doubt the German defeat:

25 september - 7 october 1918 French offensive in Champagne and Argonne:
[my translation sorry]


The results of the Champagne battle, carried out by the 4e and 5e French Army and by the American 1st Army, are brilliant. The Hindenburg line is dislocated on this side also, and carries a breach of 70 kilometers, from Suippe to the Meuse. The German 1st, 3nd and 5th army engaged all their reserves, which are about to be unable to continue the fight. In the front of Gouraud only, on 13 German divisions engaged, three were destroyed: 42e and 103e and the Bavarian division; Three are unusable because they are decimated and are going to be dissolved, seven suffered considerable losses, but still fight, with very reduced manpower. Reims is released; and for the first time since 1914, the city, ruined but not violated, sees the enemy driven back with 30 kilometers of its suburbs.
This battle cost the Germans 27000 prisoners and more than 500 guns.


8-16 october: allied offensive in North and Aisne


no more reserves available: hardly twenty exhausted divisions, which it was necessary to distribute in the various sectors to counter a rupture. On 191 German divisions which still exist on the French front, 139 were engaged and damaged... 84 divisions have been in front line and engaged for more than fifteen days, day and night, in a keen fight; They are exhausted. Everywhere, manpower are terribly reduced; the regiments of the 8th German division are nothing any more but skeletons; the 408e has a total of 400 men; the 238e, of 200; The 254e, of 240. Without speaking about dead and casualties whose appears considerable, the Army had lost more than 300,000 prisoners and the third of his artillery. Nearly 300 battalions had to be dissolved, and the 1920 class, all on line, is not enough to fill the holes. The line of fire is fed more by too old reservists or too young conscripts

This without counting all the other very successfull offensives, notably some brillant British ones.
The allied had more success in the 4 last month of the war than in the first 4 years. That was obviously completely stupid to stop it now.
This witout counting 170,000 Americans put on line each month,
This while the Germans were dying of starvation by tens of thousands.

Germany was about to fall like a rotten fruit.

[Lanton]

i had one history teacher who opined that WW1 and 2 were the same war, the combatants just needed 20 years to rest and start fighting again.

I heard one American historian refer to it as a European civil war, with, like you said, a brief truce in the middle of it.

[Kilgor]

I heard one American historian refer to it as a European civil war, with, like you said, a brief truce in the middle of it.

Steven Ambrose called it like this.

A massive european civil war with a 20 year ceasefire.

[a_very_ex_STAB]

Steven Ambrose called it like this.

A massive european civil war with a 20 year ceasefire.

I blame the Kaiser :)

[Atlantic Friend]

There would not have been a WW2 if the Treaty would not have been abused by the french as a humiliation of germany.

Given the relative situation of France and Germany in 1918 in terms of production (the former's industrial regions having been plundered and devastated for 4 years while the latter's industrial might was intact), and population (France still being over 39 million despite the transfer of Alasace-Lorraine, Germany being at 70+ millions) it should come as no surprise that
the Treaty was aimed at derailing Germany's capacity to rise again.

I'll add, for the historical record, that when Prussia triumphed over France in 1870, it imposed to the vanquished nation tremendous reparations which were aimed at making sure France would not be able to rebuild its military/industrial potential for many decades, while paying for Germany's modernization...

Versailles was certainly a cruel treaty for Germany, but I have no doubt a victorious Germany in 1918 would have imposed similar clauses, like it did in 1870 and did again 22 years later in 1940.