People of the New World can't differanciate when it comes to Europe.

[Jon Miller]

France against Germany?

You do know that in many ways France's tanks were the best on the field (and were considered the best on the field) plus they had a huge defence

of course they were not up on the new way to engage in warfare, but you could not have seen that then

Jon Miller

[Col Bigspear]

Originally posted by Chris 62
Why is it you always try to blame the US for Hitler?

If your country had any backbone under Chamberlin, it would have never have come to the US/USSR having to save your backsides.

Your lame ass country did'nt loose MILLIONS of young men only 21 years earlier. After the slaughter of the trenches, do you think we wanted to send MILLIONS of others to die in a new war.

[Ned]

paiktis, we know that the Nazi's targeted others besides the Jews. But the question is how innocent were other Europeans? Clearly some participated in the slaughter. I think they did so with alacrity.

Check out this report from Lithuania.

The Jager Report

[Ned]

Col Bigspear, then why did England declare war at all?

[Chris 62]

The Col seems perturbed, must be all that pent up frustration from being the US's lacky got to him.

[Col Bigspear]

Originally posted by Ned
Col Bigspear, then why did England declare war at all?

Enough was enough.
The earlier annexations could be justified. (to a certain extent, not enough to start a costly war over).
The Rhur (cant remember the name of the exact area, vast coal mines occupied by the french) WAS Germany and had mostly German citizens.

Austria, as near to being German without being German.

The Studaten land (SP?) the vast majority were German.

The rest of Czechoslavakia (SP?) Most of europe frowned upon this, Hitler claimed it would be his last "annexation" and if that meant avoiding a war so be it.

Poland. Hitler claimed Czechoslavakia would be his last "annexation". He broke his promise, he wanted the German speaking area of Danzig (now Gdnsk (SP?) ) and the area around it. When the Poles refused Hitler invaded. Appeasing Hitler again would only lead to him breaking his promise again, this is when war was unavoidable. What to do ?. Allow Hitler to invade Poland and let him push the rest of europe around or face the facts, enough was enough, this stops here and now, we mean business.
Fortunately the politicians chose the latter

[Ned]

Originally posted by Col Bigspear

The rest of Czechoslavakia (SP?) Most of europe frowned upon this, Hitler claimed it would be his last "annexation" and if that meant avoiding a war so be it.

Poland. Hitler claimed Czechoslavakia would be his last "annexation". He broke his promise, he wanted the German speaking area of Danzig (now Gdnsk (SP?) ) and the area around it. When the Poles refused Hitler invaded.

Appeasing Hitler again would only lead to him breaking his promise again, this is when war was unavoidable. What to do ?. Allow Hitler to invade Poland and let him push the rest of europe around or face the facts, enough was enough, this stops here and now, we mean business.
Fortunately the politicians chose the latter

Twice in the above paragraph you mentioned pushing "Europe" around. But this is not quite true, is it? A major portion of Europe was allied with Hitler, including the USSR which took its own chunk of Poland.

Who were they pushing around? It certainly was not "Europe." And it was not England or France - or was it? If so, how were England's and France's interests involved with Poland?

I note further that ONLY France and England declared war - this time without the Russians or the Italians. How in the world could this make any strategic sense whatsoever. England and France could not beat Germany in WWI with the Russians and Italians and even the Americans as Allies. It took a revolution in Germany to end the war. Remembering the gigantic losses England suffered in the first war, I simply don't understand its thinking in starting WWII.

Sure Hitler was as unpleasant a person as Saddam. But at least with Saddam we have the prospect of a quick and easy victory. Starting WWII over Danzig made no sense at all unless the there were vital English interests at stake and there was a prospective victory. But what England's interests were is not clear. Certainly England had no hope of winning when it declared war in 1939. It took both the USSR and the US to help England win WWII.

If England had Roosevelt's assurances of support, then England's declaration of war makes more sense. But did they?

[Chris 62]

It was a matter of prestige Ned, and credibility.

Britain and France had treaties and had made Garuntees
to Poland, if they failed to uphold these, as they failed to uphold those made to the Czechs, no nation would EVER listen to Britain or France again (chillingly familar to the current postion of the UN and it's resolutions).

This could mean Germany might have a free hand in Russia, or two more years to prepare for all out war, even equiping it's sattelites properly, no drain helping Italy, ECT.

All of it would be far worse then declairing war, and there is another factor.
Chamberlin is famous as an appeasor, but he was really a practical man, he felt humiliated when Germany rolled into Czechoslovakia, breaking Hitler's personal word to him, and he swore that he would see Hitler brought to justice for his actions.

[TheStinger]

The British were as culpable as the US for the holocaust

[Ned]

Originally posted by Chris 62
It was a matter of prestige Ned, and credibility.

Britain and France had treaties and had made Garuntees
to Poland, if they failed to uphold these, as they failed to uphold those made to the Czechs, no nation would EVER listen to Britain or France again (chillingly familar to the current postion of the UN and it's resolutions).

This could mean Germany might have a free hand in Russia, or two more years to prepare for all out war, even equiping it's sattelites properly, no drain helping Italy, ECT.

All of it would be far worse then declairing war, and there is another factor.
Chamberlin is famous as an appeasor, but he was really a practical man, he felt humiliated when Germany rolled into Czechoslovakia, breaking Hitler's personal word to him, and he swore that he would see Hitler brought to justice for his actions.

Yes, Chris, I know about the treaties and the credibility issue. But this made WWII eactly like WWI. It too was set off by treaties - a powderkeg that exploded into the worst war in history.

But still, regardless of the treaties and "face," one does not start an offensive war, as did England and France, unless one has a realistic chance of winning it. Based only on the Axis vs. England and France (and Poland for however many days she could hold out) the balance of forces seem to weigh heavily in Germany's favor. You have England and France against Germany (Austria and Czechoslovakia), Japan, Italy, Finnland, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, Serbia, Slovenia, Croatia and perhaps Spain and the USSR. England and France could not possibly hope to prevail. That they did is only because Hitler declared war on both the USSR and the US. But how did England and France know that Hitler would do that in 1939?

Even after Poland fell, England and France refused to negotiate peace even though Hitler went out of his way trying to end the war. Why? The issue of Danzig was now settled. I believe Hitler was willing to set the rest of Poland "free" so long as they remained German allies. But no, England and France did not settle, nor did they invade Germany. They simply waited for the German assault.

This seems insane on its face.

But it is less insane if, as I said, they had Roosevelt's guarantee of support.

I have read a lot of the diplomatic traffic (available from the Roosevelt Library) between the US, Britain and France in that timeframe. There was no doubt in my mind that they were all cooridinating messages and policy - with Roosevelt calling the shots. I think England and France had Roosevelt's commitment.

[ckweb]

Originally posted by MacTBone
Another reason why Jews are concentrated on as opposed to other oppressed people from the time (other than just sheer numbers) was the education and literacy of those people. Many Jews wrote about their experiences which has allowed us to study them and as far as I know, all the truly famous books described from a victim's viewpoint were written by Jews.

Good point. Elie Wiesel springs to mind.

[Kropotkin]

Or Primo Levi. However I doubt that many of the jiddish-speaking, ghetto-living, jews in eastern europe where particulary educated. As for the ones in Germany or any other western european country it might hold true.

[TheStinger]

Britain and France could count on Australia,Canada South Africa and other empire countries

At the time no one thought the Germans would walk through France, I think the plan was to hold any attacks whilst a navy blockade would mean that Hitler would become unpopular with the people and be overthrown by a more reasonable leader IIRC Goering was thought to be a man who they could do business with

[Sikander]

Originally posted by TheStinger
Goering was thought to be a man who they could do business with

"Just keep his fat face stuffed with luft-waffles and he'll agree to anything!"

[TheStinger]

I should have said New Zealand as well