Germany

[Adalbertus]

Hitler was power hungry and power-drunk. After 1933, it was too late. In 1937, it was clear that Hitler wanted to go for war.
My granddad actually said this when on work. My grandmother and my father were lucky to see him the morning after. My granddad knew someone ...

[Sikander]

It seems that some people are not familiar with the terms of the Rome-Berlin-Tokyo Axis. It was a defensive and non-aggression treaty believe it or not. The Germans attacked the Soviets, and the Japanese were under no obligation to help (and they didn't). When the Japanese attacked the Americans the Germans were under no obligation to do likewise. Hitler on his own initiative and without checking with the Japanese declared war on the U.S. hoping that the Japanese would declare war on the U.S.S.R. How one of the world's most successful swindlers could be so stupid is a question for the ages.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Adalbertus
Hitler was power hungry and power-drunk. After 1933, it was too late. In 1937, it was clear that Hitler wanted to go for war.
My granddad actually said this when on work. My grandmother and my father were lucky to see him the morning after. My granddad knew someone ...

Adalbertus, Are you saying Hitler arrested your Grandfather?

As to 1937, if it was so clear that Hitler actually wanted another European War, why didn't France, England and the US realize it until after Hitler took Czechoslovakia on the Ides of March, 1939?

Here is a little bit of history,

"At this point, the whole world waited to see how Prime Minister Chamberlain would react to the incredible happenings in Czechoslovakia, all of which were gross violations of the Munich Agreement.

Chamberlain responded to Hitler's aggression by claiming the British were not bound to protect Czechoslovakia since the country in effect no longer existed after Slovakia had voted for independence on March 14. And Hitler's actions had occurred the next day, March 15.

The Prime Minister's willy-nilly statement caused an uproar in the British press and in the House of Commons. Chamberlain was lambasted over his lack of moral outrage concerning Hitler's gangster diplomacy. Angry members of the House of Commons vowed that England would never again appease Hitler.

Interestingly, while traveling on a train from London to Birmingham on Friday, March 17, Chamberlain underwent a complete change of heart. He had in his hand a prepared speech discussing routine domestic matters that he was supposed to give in Birmingham. But upon deep reflection, he decided to junk the speech and outlined a brand new one concerning Hitler.

In the new speech, which was broadcast throughout England on radio, Chamberlain first apologized for his lukewarm reaction to Hitler's recent actions in Czechoslovakia. Then he recited a list of broken promises made by Hitler dating back to the Munich Agreement.

"The Führer," Chamberlain asserted, "has taken the law into his own hands."

"Now we are told that this seizure of territory has been necessitated by disturbances in Czechoslovakia...If there were disorders, were they not fomented from without?"

"Is this the last attack upon a small state or is it to be followed by others? Is this, in effect, a step in the direction of an attempt to dominate the world by force?"

If so, Chamberlain declared: "No greater mistake could be made than to suppose that because it believes war to be a senseless and cruel thing, this nation has so lost its fiber that it will not take part to the utmost of its power in resisting such a challenge if it ever were made."

Now, for the first time in the history of the Third Reich, England had finally declared it would stand up to the German dictator and was willing to fight.

The next day, March 18, British diplomats informed the Nazis that Hitler's occupation of Czechoslovakia was "a complete repudiation of the Munich Agreement...devoid of any basis of legality." The French also lodged a strong protest saying they "would not recognize the legality of the German occupation."

However, Hitler and the Nazis could care less what they thought. Hitler had seen his "enemies" at Munich and considered them to be little worms.

But now, in an ominous development for Hitler, Britain and France went beyond mere diplomatic protests. On March 31, Prime Minister Chamberlain issued a solid declaration, with the backing of France, guaranteeing Hitler's next likely victim, Poland, from Nazi aggression.

The era of Hitler's bloodless conquests had ended. The next time German troops rolled into foreign territory there would be an actual shooting war.

It had been only six months since the Munich Agreement and there were only about six months left until the outbreak of World War II. During these months, the various countries of Europe formed military alliances, choosing up sides like schoolboys preparing for a game of football - France with England and Poland, Italy with Germany and so forth. No one, however, could figure out what the Soviet Union under Joseph Stalin would do."

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov

It was perhaps a poor choice considering the political mileage Bush & Co. are getting out of twisting her words, but it wasn't a bad thing to say in and of itself. She was right, after all.

Boris, you're as cynical as Stalin.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Kontiki

Why do so many Americans (not all) have to equate any negative statement made against their country as "US is evil, every American is evil, all must die"? Try taking things in context for once.

So far the only people here who seem to be taking it that way are members of the Bush administration, which seems not only fair, but logical.

I generally don't mind fair criticism, even if I disagree with it. These remarks were too strong for a Minister of an ally though. Imagine the outcry if an American cabinet officer likened the Chancellor to Hitler even in an indirect way. Bush is the head of our Government and State. If he acts in a way that reminds one of the things that set Hitler apart from other world leaders then by all means make the analogy. In this case it is far too strong.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Sikander
It seems that some people are not familiar with the terms of the Rome-Berlin-Tokyo Axis. It was a defensive and non-aggression treaty believe it or not. The Germans attacked the Soviets, and the Japanese were under no obligation to help (and they didn't). When the Japanese attacked the Americans the Germans were under no obligation to do likewise. Hitler on his own initiative and without checking with the Japanese declared war on the U.S. hoping that the Japanese would declare war on the U.S.S.R. How one of the world's most successful swindlers could be so stupid is a question for the ages.

Sik, I don't doubt that the pact was defensive, but how do you know the rest of the post - what Hitler was thinking, for example? How do you know that the Japanese and Germans were not discussing war plans in detail well before Dec. 7?

[Ned]

Sik, Schroeder and his Bush-bashing finance minister are no allies. We should put our relationhsip in a real deep freeze if Schroeder is re-elected.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Ned


Sik, I don't doubt that the pact was defensive, but how do you know the rest of the post - what Hitler was thinking, for example? How do you know that the Japanese and Germans were not discussing war plans in detail well before Dec. 7?

I don't "know" it in all honesty. But WWII is one of the most (probably the most) studied conflict in history, enormous numbers of documents survived the war, I have read vast numbers of histories created from those documents and thousands of interviews, and no historian I have ever read claims that there was much in the way of war planning between the Japanese and the Germans beyond some fantasy about where they were going to draw some of the lines on the map once they were victorious. Not only haven't I seen any historian claiming a more careful set of plans, I have in fact read a number of histories which point out this careless disinterest in grand strategy on the part of both the Japanese and the Germans.

By the time they decide to babystep their way into cooperation the war was already at least a year beyond the point of inevitable defeat for them. They never reached the level of cooperation that the Americans and the British had even before the Atlantic Charter, nor did they manage to cooperate as well as the Americans or British did with the Russians. For all intents and purposes they had common enemies but were not allies. For instance neither side bothered to alert the other to major declarations of war, such as the ones we have been discussing.

[Heresson]

When Hitler got to power, Poland proposed "preventiona; war" to France. France chickened out. And we could avoid
nazizm and ww2 this way, not minding Soviet rule over
middle Europe and Cold War.

[Ned]

Heresson, Amen.

Sik, A few events:

1936: Japan and Germany sign anti-Comitern Pact

August 23, 1939: Germany - USSR Non Aggression Pact

Sept. 1939: Germany and USSR invade Poland

Sept. 1939: Japan calls off counter-attack in Mongolia and enters cease fire with USSR

Sept: 1940: Tripartite Pact, pact does not alter existing agreements with USSR. A commission is formed to coordinate....

April 1941: Japan and USSR enter into Neutrality Pact brokered by Germany

June 1941: Germany invades USSR, Japan stays neutral

July 1945: Japanese gov't reshuffled. Matsuoka replaced. Matsuoka urged attack on USSR.

July 1945: Japan invades Indochina

Dec. 1941: Japan attacks Pearl Harbor; Germany declares war on the United States

I think the above pattern shows that at some point Germany and Japan decided that Japan had to attack South and capture the Allies' colonies for resource purposes. Otherwise the Neutrality Pact makes no sense. It does make sense if they wanted to keep the USSR from attacking Japan.

[Spiffor]

I think Schröder's "antiamericanism" has a deep signification. German society is changing : Germans have been very fond of Americans since the end of WW2 (at least publicly), this love for America has been bundled with a shame of being German.

Schröder has been trying to give some renewed national pride to Germans (I don't know if this attempt lasted). I think it leads them not to force themselves to admire America.

If Schröder uses "antiamericanism" to get votes in a society which was really fond of the US, maybe Americans should wonder why so many people are beginning to dislike them.

[Heresson]

Stoiber attacked Czech Rp (and Poland, but after a tough
responce He backed off) in his campaign.

[Adalbertus]

Adalbertus, Are you saying Hitler arrested your Grandfather?

Not Hitler personally. My grandfather said at work to a collegue or some colleagues "Hitler works towards a war". This came into the wrong ears, which was enough to get an interview with the Gestapo (Geheime Staatspolizei - secret national policy, the internal secret service). And there was fortunately someone who knew him and said that my grandfather wasn't dangerous. So he was released the morning after.

Something similar happened to the father of my godfather - he had birthday the same day as Hitler, opened the window in the morning, saw flags everywhere, and said "This wasn't really necessary". He also got the interview and was released because he knew someone.

This is also why I don't want to call the US a police state (even if some on the forum do), as long as I don't hear similar things.

About antiamericanism in Germany:
It has traditions back to 1968, where it developed among the left-wingers (those the Green party arose of and who chose to close at least one eye to the crimes of Stalinism.) For them, the entire capitalist west is "work of the devil" and they opposed the USA as its main proponent. They are alike anti-German. Sounds crazy but they are.

The problem with the Schröder government is that they want to keep their voters on the left side and at the same time want to get them in the centre (similarly as Blair), which makes them sometimes to promote crazy things.
On the other hand, Bush's policy is not very popular. This is something I wouldn't see as anti-American in itself.

[private hudson]

ooooooooooooops when I went off topic a bit I seemed to have stirred up things a bit!

Ned So do you believe the whole of world war 2 was solely or mainly down to britain refusing to take note of America? Since when from 1919 to 1939 did you pay any attention to europe? Succesive american governments ignored events, then suddenly you come along and promised to solve it all with one simple conference when numerous others failed? Have you forgot your isolation from affairs and disinterest? Why would we believe you?

And further to this look at some other facts. during WWII hitler invaded Russia, Norway, Holland, Belgium, Luxembourg and Poland all without them declaring war first! Does this strike you as the actions of a defensive minded person? Hitler wanted the british on his side simply so it would be easier to overrun the mainland whilst we held onto the empire. And He also invaded Greece and Yugoslavia, after Italy invaded them, hardly in defence of his country since Italy was clearly the agressor in both cases.

As to your point on 1937 well for a start in 1937 America did not care about europe one bit. Succesive acts of terror and agression by Italy and Japan were ingored by the Americans and the League of Nations. Perhaps (and this may seem strange) The british and French finally realised that Hitler was a meglomaniac and not just trying to destroy the versailles treaty. And why would a person trying to restore germany risk all restoring Czechosolvakia, a country never fully under german rule! Then Poland, why divide it into two with Stalin if the sole intention was to restore German areas such as East Prussia?

And for another reason the british and french were not in any way prepared for a war in 1937. Perhaps they were biding time, trying to give Hitler the chance to stop his invasions and bloodless conquering whilst also preparing for a war if necessary.

And to finish what the hell would this fabled american backed conference had achieved? Would it have stopped Hitler and if so how? Would america have bothered to enforce any agreements such as fighting germnany in 1939 if the germans broke the terms (as hitler was fond of doing). Sure we will never know, but a simple analysis of Hitler's actions both pre war and during the war would indicate that Hitler was prepared to force issues as far as they would go. Would America have backed the agreements? Because I very much doubt it.