Biggest Mistakes the Axis made iyo.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove

Hey, don't forget that great swathes of the American midwest were settled by Germans, or that Germans settled parts of Mexico, Brazil, Argentina, Venezuala, and Colombia.

Well, I was trying to limit it to Continental European territories.

However, he could have had Robsonstrasse (as was) in downtown Vancouver, British Columbia.


And Bismarck, North Dakota....

[Ned]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove


Did Hitler stop at taking just former German land when he annexed not only the Sudetenland, but also the rest of Czechoslovakia? No he did not! Germany never owned Bohemia or Slovakia. For that matter Germany never owned the Sudetenland. Germany's claim on the Sudetenland stemmed not from historical claims of ownership, but from demographics. Posnan and western Prussia had been Polish before they were German, and the peoples inhabiting those lands in the early 29th century were Polish. Why should they not have the same rights as the Sudetenland Germans? Come to think of it why shouldn't the slavic Czechs and Slovaks? The British refused to negotiate with the Germans because they saw no end ot his aggression. History proved them right. Remember that after Hitler finished France he turned on Yugoslavia and Greece, and finally he turned on the Soviet Union. Face it Hitler was acting out the grandiose dreams laid out in Mein Kampf. He wasn't interested in peace except as a weapon in adjunct to his war to subdue "non-aryan" humanity.

There were TWO treaties that Hitler was trying to undo. The second involved the breakup of the Austro-Hungarian empire. Now, if you conviently ignore this fact and the fact that Czechoslovakia was part of that Empire, one could make the case, as did the Brits, that Hitler was trying to conquer the world. What he was trying to do, rather, was restore the First Reich.

Now, it is clear that Hitler lied to the Brits about his immediate intentions in order to get what he wanted in the Sudetenland. The Brits seemed to be amenable to allowing reunification of German peoples under one rule. But their fear, clearly, was that Germany would swallow the whole of Poland. The Brits cared not one whit about the Poles. The Brits were concerned that Germany stay as weak as possible, following traditional Brit policy of weakening the strongest power in Europe. They had no real objection to the USSR taking a piece of Poland. They only objected to Germany taking back the pieces that were stolen from it in the Versailles Treaty.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove

The British refused to negotiate with the Germans because they saw no end ot his aggression. History proved them right. Remember that after Hitler finished France he turned on Yugoslavia and Greece, and finally he turned on the Soviet Union. Face it Hitler was acting out the grandiose dreams laid out in Mein Kampf. He wasn't interested in peace except as a weapon in adjunct to his war to subdue "non-aryan" humanity.

Why didn't you talk about Holland, Belgium et al? Clearly such a discussion weakens your point.

There was a war on beginning the spring of 1940 because Britain and France refused to negotiate for the previous six months. Subsequent decisions on the continent were strategic in nature. Friendly regimes became allies, unfriendly became conquered, and some, Ireland, Sweden, Spain, Portugal, Switzerland, for example, remained neutral.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


I grand you that the Treaty of Versailles was one of the fundamental cause of Nazis raising. However, it still does not explain further aggressions by Germany after it took back the lost territories.

Attempts to whitewash German attacks beyond this point are simply revisionism.

Urban, I dealt with this in my previous post. But, almost all of Germany's moves from 1940 on were dictated by the strategic situation. Similarly, when Japan took the Dutch East Indies, it did no because the Dutch refused to sell them oil.

[Ned]

Originally posted by molly bloom


Let's see; in March of 1939 Hitler ordered the German occupation of the whole of Czechoslovakia (except for the part that Poland occupied), pressured Lithuania to return Memel and Poland to allow railway connections across its territory to allow Germany and East Prussia to be 'reconnected'.

Hitler's occupation of the remainder of Czechoslovakia breached the Munich Teaty of 1938, wherein he stated that he had no further territorial demands to make in Europe.

On the 31st March, 1939, Chamberlain declared formally that Great Britain would guarantee Poland's territorial integrity and that Hitler should reduce his demands.

On the 3rd April Hitler ordered the armed forces to prepare for the invasion of Poland on 1st September.

Hitler hoped, foolishly as it turns out, that Chamberlain would back down this time (as the Allies had over the Anschluss, Sudetenland and the occupation of rump Czechoslovakia) .

He had no casus belli with Poland.


I'll never put you on ignore, Ned. It's too entertaining.


With regard to Micha's post re:Bohemia- the Czechs can boast a history going back to King Wenceslaus, and Austria-Hungary/The Habsburg Empire was not Germany, or 'german'. It happened to be ruled by an ethnic German minority.

In any case, given events in the Austro-Hungarian Empire, Czech nationalism and culture had flourished in the absence of a proper 'national' parliament, and Germans were for instance, a minority in Prague.

Austria-Hungary's defeat by Prussia at Sadowa-Koniggratz also meant that it no longer took part in 'north' German affairs, and in any case going by the logic that Bohemia was supposedly German because there were Germans there, then Germany should also have occupied great swathes of Hungary and Rumania and of course where the Volga Germans lived in Russia.

Using the same logic, Poland could legitimately have taken parts of East Prussia, Russia and Lithuania.

Culture and population did not determine who owned what.

1) No doubt that the Brits had no reason to trust Hitler after Munich. I grant you that.

2) What interest did Britain have in interfering with German-Polish negotiations?

[Ned]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove


Austro-Hungary also owned Hungary, Galicia, Transylvannia, Croatia, Slovenia, and Bosnia-Herzegovina. Hitler never made a claim to restoring the Austro-Hungarian empire. In fact he often expressed a great deal of contempt for the old empire.

Yes I'm aware that the Kingdom of Poland once had Saxons on its throne, however by agreement the two titles were never joined.

I really believe that this is not true at all. He felt that both treaties were forced on "Reich" which he believe, included Austria.

[Micha]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
The controversy being discussed here was Ned's assertion that Britain was responsible for the outbreak of WW2 by not encouraging the Poles to give in to Hitler's demands. Am I correct in interpreting your post to mean that you're a advocate of Nazi theory?

Thank you for reading my posts thoroughly.

The war became WW2 because of the Allied DOW on Sep 3rd, 1939. Technically the UK and France have started the world war.

Of course the German invasion of Poland was the cause for that, but this is not subject of this discussion.

My previous post was about your argument that Germany had no claim on Poznan... Of course it had, because the Nazis declared it colonial territory of Germany. This was sufficient for Germany, while it surely sounds ludicrous to the rest of the world. This is linked to the ideology of the regime, which is well-known and which I don´t want to elaborate. After all, you seem to use "you´re a Nazi" to end a discussion.

[Ecthy]

some of you guys really mix up things. shut up Ned.

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by Micha


Thank you for reading my posts thoroughly.

The war became WW2 because of the Allied DOW on Sep 3rd, 1939. Technically the UK and France have started the world war.

Of course the German invasion of Poland was the cause for that, but this is not subject of this discussion.

My previous post was about your argument that Germany had no claim on Poznan... Of course it had, because the Nazis declared it colonial territory of Germany. This was sufficient for Germany, while it surely sounds ludicrous to the rest of the world. This is linked to the ideology of the regime, which is well-known and which I don´t want to elaborate. After all, you seem to use "you´re a Nazi" to end a discussion.

Was Germany notified of the alliance? I'm certain that it was. Usually the whole point of an alliance is that the members consider an attack on one to be virtually the same as an attack on every member. Sometimes an alliance may contain qualifying statutes allowing members to ignore their obligations in certain cases, such as when the member requesting aid is the aggressor. Such was not the case in September of 1939, because Germany attacked Poland, not the other way around. When Germany attacked Poland they therefore were surely aware that their actions would be considered an act of war against Britain and France. The resultant declarations issued by France and Britain then were merely pro forma since they had every right to consider Germany's attack on Poland to be a declaration of war upon them as well as Poland.

[Ecthy]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove Such was not the case in September of 1940, because Germany attacked Poland, not the other way around.

Capital error. You lose the debate.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove


Was Germany notified of the alliance? I'm certain that it was. Usually the whole point of an alliance is that the members consider an attack on one to be virtually the same as an attack on every member. Sometimes an alliance may contain qualifying statutes allowing members to ignore their obligations in certain cases, such as when the member requesting aid is the aggressor. Such was not the case in September of 1940, because Germany attacked Poland, not the other way around. When Germany attacked Poland they therefore were surely aware that their actions would be considered an act of war against Britain and France. The resultant declarations issued by France and Britain then were merely pro forma since they had every right to consider Germany's attack on Poland to be a declaration of war upon them as well as Poland.

Yes they drew a line in the sand, on August 26th, five days before the attack, and during the middle of negotiations. This was NOT you typical defensive alliance. It was direct interference by Britain and France in ongoing negotiations between Germany and Poland.

I ask you as I asked Molly earlier, what business was it of Britain to torpedo ongoing negotiations between Germany and Poland? What right did they have to interfere?

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by Ned


I really believe that this is not true at all. He felt that both treaties were forced on "Reich" which he believe, included Austria.

Prior to the war Hitler said repeatedly that he had no desire to resurrect the dual monarchy. He considered it to have been effete and decadent, not worthy of the new Germany.

In any case if we're arguing over the responsibility for WW2 I don't see how Hitler's desire to abnegate the treaties of Versailles shifts the blame for the war to Great Britain. Hitler concocted a charade as an excuse for attacking Poland. Evidently even he didn't think that his claim to have the right to renege on the treaty was sufficient reason to attack Poland so he devised a lie that Poland attacked him. Britain and France merely lived up to their treaty obligations to protect Poland. To any reasonable person the second world war began the moment that German soldiers entered Polish territory in September of 1939.

You seem to have dreamt up some fantasy that the world was obligated to give Hitler everything he demanded, and that Hitler was to be trusted to take nothing more than he had asked for even though experience in Czechoslovakia proved otherwise.

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by Ecthelion


Capital error. You lose the debate.

Thanks for the editing.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove


Prior to the war Hitler said repeatedly that he had no desire to resurrect the dual monarchy. He considered it to have been effete and decadent, not worthy of the new Germany.

In any case if we're arguing over the responsibility for WW2 I don't see how Hitler's desire to abnegate the treaties of Versailles shifts the blame for the war to Great Britain. Hitler concocted a charade as an excuse for attacking Poland. Evidently even he didn't think that his claim to have the right to renege on the treaty was sufficient reason to attack Poland so he devised a lie that Poland attacked him. Britain and France merely lived up to their treaty obligations to protect Poland. To any reasonable person the second world war began the moment that German soldiers entered Polish territory in September of 1939.

You seem to have dreamt up some fantasy that the world was obligated to give Hitler everything he demanded, and that Hitler was to be trusted to take nothing more than he had asked for even though experience in Czechoslovakia proved otherwise.

Dr. Strangelove, we will never know, will we, what would have happened had not Britain put its big nose into the middle of negotiations between Germany and Poland. I am sure that Germany would have gotten what it wanted from Poland. But you also seem to be sure that Germany would have taken all of Poland as it did Czechoslovakia. But the difference between Czechoslovakia and Poland was that Czechoslovakia had been part of the First Reich and part of the Austro-Hungarian Empire.

Clearly Britain was pursuing its on Imperial interests in attempting to block Germany's reconstitution of the Reich. That is the point I am making here. She had no real interest in Poland.

[Ecthy]

actually the first side to bring up the nazis automatically loses the debate, so this thread should be a closed case.