1939-When the world had not yet fallen apart

[Vandervahn]

The ambivalent stance of the greater powers towards Germany and Hitler before the Westfeldzug is regularly subject of discussions both on message boards and in reality. One argument that is often used would be a partly "pro Germany attitude" in the USA of that time, and this claim is justified by the popular story of Hitler being chosen as "Man Of The Year" by the Times Magazine.

I have to admit that I sometimes used this argument, too. But I recently found a transcript of the main article in that "Man Of The Year" issue of 1939, and its very interesting and offers a view upon Mr. Hitler and Germany that later was lost due to the animosities of the war, and that he wasnt chosen despite but BECAUSE of his possibly hostile attitude. Recommended for all those interested.



http://www.scrapbookpages.com/DachauMemorial/TimeCover.html


...
When without loss of blood he reduced Czechoslovakia to a German puppet state, forced a drastic revision of Europe's defensive alliances, and won a free hand for himself in Eastern Europe by getting a "hands-off" promise from powerful Britain (and later France), Adolf Hitler without doubt became 1938's Man of the Year....

And the last sentence:

To those who watched the closing events of the year it seemed more than probable that the Man of 1938 may make 1939 a year to be remembered.

http://www.scrapbookpages.com/DachauMemorial/TimeCover.jpg

[Kitsune]

Are you sure you have read that article? It's a rant that basically says "Hitler is the great danger" spiced with a little bit of anti-Germanism. It was this thinking that led to the complete and utter confrontation of Nazi Germany from early 1939 onwards that would help to bring WWII about and would also be prevalent in the thinking of Roosevelts America. The injustice that had been done to Germany is largely ignored (statements like "Hitler stole another 10 million inhabitants for Germany ignores that the majority of those wanted to become Germans or that the Reich had lost about that many people after WWI through the Versailles treaty).

It is sad but true that the Nationalsocialists ended free speech and expression in Germany and that their reign was downright deadly for the German art scene which had been incredibly rich in the Weimarian Republic. But Hitler could surf on a wave of enormous inner and foreign political successes, which had been completely denied to the democratic Germany by the victorious powers of WWI. Because of this, it would have been just if the democratic world would have had a bit more patience with Germany. The Nazis would not have had success forever, and a economic high time like the one of the 30ties (for Germany) would also not have lasted forever.

But it came differently. After the Munich negotiations and especially after the German occupation of Czechia (which was technically NOT a breach of the Munich treaty, also, Germany wasn't the only nation to snatch its part from dying Cezchoslovakia), Britain and France, accustomed to be the proud rulers of Europe, running the show as they wanted up to the mouth of the Danube, felt humiliated. From then on they chose utter confrontation of Germany - by backing the Poles no matter what in the Danzig question and, and that is truly despicable, by negotiating with Stalin to form a Anti-German alliance.
But Stalin would do his own thing and suddenly switch sides, Hitler, frustrated by the Western behaviour, would agree to a pact with his arch-enemy. Both then attacked Poland. And Britain and France would declare war upon Germany alone...and again negotiate with Stalin to join forces against Hitler. The rest is history.
I still think that WWII could have been prevented and that the Nazis still would not have ruled a thousand years.