Biggest Mistakes the Axis made iyo.

[Ecthy]

so what should be done about South Korea?

[Myrddin]

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse
Well the stupid Poles woud have been much better off siding with Hitler, ceding territory to Germany in return for territory in Russia. That might have changed history.

The Hungarians did that - they ended up better off as they only got invaded by the Red Army

[Dr Strangelove]

Not making sure that Hitler, Georing, Goebbels, and Heydrich had a sufficient daily consumption of ketchup is what did in the Nazis.

[Alexander's Horse]

Originally posted by Myrddin


The Hungarians did that - they ended up better off as they only got invaded by the Red Army

Think about it - if the Poles side with Hitler - no war in the West - Hitler launches his "crusade against bolshevism" - wins support from France and Britain - winds up great European heroe for "saving" Europe from communism.

[Ted Striker]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
Not making sure that Hitler, Georing, Goebbels, and Heydrich had a sufficient daily consumption of ketchup is what did in the Nazis.

You forgot Heinz!

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse


Think about it - if the Poles side with Hitler - no war in the West - Hitler launches his "crusade against bolshevism" - wins support from France and Britain - winds up great European heroe for "saving" Europe from communism.

The downside of that deal would have been that the Poles would have had to give up west Prussia and Posnan, two areas which were populated by Poles. Sure they had once been part of Germany, but only because Austria, Russia and Prussia ruthlessly carved Poland up in the 1790s.

Given the sort of world view outlined in "Mein Kampf" I doubt that France and Britain would have been very eager to hand over the vast population and resources of the Soviet Union to Hitler. They had some scruples you know.

[Ned]

Another think that is interesting is that Hitler is very chummy-chummy with Stalin in 1939. He said that the regime had been transformed and was not a different kind of state. I was wondering if Hitler's invasion of the USSR had anything to do with Brit diplomacy trying to get Stalin to switch sides?

[Dr Strangelove]

I think that Hitler was a man who had been physically and emotionally abused by his tyrannical father as a child. It's doubtful that the scion of the Hitler clan imparted even the slightest ability to empathise with other human beings to his young son. As an adolescent he barely survived under the most desperate of circumstances, circumstances in which he learned that ethics and morality were mere conveniences affected as a means to an end. Thus Hitler found it very easy to pretend to be Stalin's friend even as he plotted his demise.

Stalin wasn't much different.

[Alexander's Horse]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove


The downside of that deal would have been that the Poles would have had to give up west Prussia and Posnan, two areas which were populated by Poles. Sure they had once been part of Germany, but only because Austria, Russia and Prussia ruthlessly carved Poland up in the 1790s.

Yes they would have - although if Poland was a German ally some sort of deal could have been struck, as was done with other German allies like Hungary, Rumania and Italy, which had substantial German minorities and against whom Hitler made no territorial claims.

Its important also to remember that Poland took ruthless advantage of the weakness of Germany and Russia to seize a lot of territory by force at the end of WWI, not all Polish - they weren't exactly blameless victims of German and Soviet aggression - there was payback involved. The Poles like to think of themselves as sainted victims. Fortunate for them history has rather whitewashed their own territorial ambitions and mistakes.

Given the sort of world view outlined in "Mein Kampf" I doubt that France and Britain would have been very eager to hand over the vast population and resources of the Soviet Union to Hitler. They had some scruples you know.

You think not? One can argue that Britain and France would have been quite happy to see Hitler turn Eastward and would not have a shed a tear at the fall of the Soviet Union. Remember that ultimately all 3 ended up on the same side in the Spanish civil war, with the Soviet Union supporting the republic. Churchill flirted with declaring war on the Soviet Union over their invasion of Finland, which would have made a very peculiar 3 sided war. Britain and France had colonial empires at the time so the ideas of Mein Kampf were hardly foreign to them, in fact Mein Kampf was partly inspired by European imperialism and Hitler's beef was that Germany didn't have a colonial empire. Britain and France definitely didn't take a stand over Mein Kampf, or the Jews for that matter. Scruples didn't come into it.

The ultimate irony would have been if Germany started to lose the war against Russia because, as they had done after WWI, Britain and France would have been hard pressed not to provide support to Germany against Russia, in order to prevent the Red Army getting into Central Europe.

Interesting scenario I think.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Ned


Now, clearly Hitler invaded Poland.

What grasp of history you have- and understatement too!

Hitler in Munich, 8th November, 1938:

"National Socialist Germany will never go to Canossa! If the rest of the world obstinately bars the way to recognition of our rights by the way of negotiation, then there should be no surprise that we secure for ourselves our rights by another way."

This is after he had sent, the October just passed, four questions to General Keitel to which he expected an immediate reply, the questions being:

1. What reinforcements are necessary in the present situation to break all Czech resistance in Bohemia and Moravia?

2. How much time is required for the regrouping or moving up of new forces?

3. How much time will be required for the same purpose if it is executed after the intended demobilization measures?

4. How much time would be required to achieve the state of readiness of October 1st ?

A new directive was then issued for the Armed Forces to liquidate the remainder of Czechoslovakia, dated 21st October.

Hitler's 'trustworthiness' can also be judged by his comments to his C. -in- C.s dated 23rd November, 1939:

"It was clear to me from the first moment that I could not be satisfied with the Sudeten territory. That was only a partial solution."


Clearly, because it had left Germans still living in what remained of Czechoslovakia, and also entailed Germany acquiring a Czech population.

I could go on at length about Hitler's funding of the Sudeten German Party, about the propaganda campaign against the Czech government, about the pressuring of the Slovak Tiso to accept a Reich protectorate over what was left of Slovakia after Hungary and Poland had had their share, but you'd just carrying on ignoring that too, in favour of speculating on what MIGHT have happened had Great Britain not stood by its agreement with Poland, and what MIGHT have happened if Hitler hadn't actually had long term territorial ambitions in Central and Eastern Europe.

But I prefer to focus on what he ACTUALLY said, and did, and thought.

[Ned]

Molly, if you could, could you please bring us up on the substance of the Munich conference? It was my understanding that Hitler has told Chamberlain that he would make no more territorial demands even though the question of a corridor to Danzig and East Prussia were obvious next steps if one were trying to undo Versailles.

As to Czech, that was long part of the HRE. Why would Chamberlain not discuss its status at a conference about Versailles?

[Ned]

Also, Molly, don't paint Britian as so noble as if it were only fulfilling its obligations under a treaty signed in innocent times. It entered into that treaty on August 26, the very day Germany had scheduled its attack. Britain knew the German military fully mobilized and on the very brink of war. The timing of the treaty was a virtual declaration of war itself.

Now, I have asked you before but you seem not to have answered. What business did Britain have in plunging itself into the midst of German-Polish negotiations, this in March of '39?

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by Ned
Also, Molly, don't paint Britian as so noble as if it were only fulfilling its obligations under a treaty signed in innocent times. It entered into that treaty on August 26, the very day Germany had scheduled its attack. Britain knew the German military fully mobilized and on the very brink of war. The timing of the treaty was a virtual declaration of war itself.

You really posess a strange kind of logic. Germany fully mobilized, have an attack plan that is going to be executed in a day or two, and then you blame Britain for starting the war because they tell Poland and Germany that if Poland is attacked, they will aid Poland. How should that could be a provocation when it is merely hours before German troops enter Poland according to a plan it has taken months to make ? An attack that would have happend even if Britain hadn't joined Polands side.

Detail, it was august 25 that Britain expanded the old guarantee to promise of military aid.

Now, I have asked you before but you seem not to have answered. What business did Britain have in plunging itself into the midst of German-Polish negotiations, this in March of '39?

Can you give one reason why they should not ? For thousands of years states have entered into treaties for both agressive and protective reasons. One reason could be that they wanted to prevent war by telling Germany that if they attack Poland, then they would also be in war with Britain and France; another reason could be that they knew that it would be unacceptable to the european powerbalance to have a germany including wast parts of Poland. Maybe they just were fond of the Polish nation and didn't want it to become german.

Nothing of this changes the fact that it was germany that was the agressor who started the war by invading another country.

I guess that you also agrees with hijackers that claims that it is the authorites that is responsible if they shoot a hostage because their demands aren't met.

[Ned]

Originally posted by BlackCat


You really posess a strange kind of logic. Germany fully mobilized, have an attack plan that is going to be executed in a day or two, and then you blame Britain for starting the war because they tell Poland and Germany that if Poland is attacked, they will aid Poland. How should that could be a provocation when it is merely hours before German troops enter Poland according to a plan it has taken months to make ? An attack that would have happend even if Britain hadn't joined Polands side.

Detail, it was august 25 that Britain expanded the old guarantee to promise of military aid.

I agree with this point, that Germany fully intended to start a war with Poland. They, however, had no intention of starting a war with Britain. So, when you say that Germany started THE war, we have to define which war it started.

What I have tried to demonstrate by facts is that Britain intended to start a war with Germany, but that Germany did not intend to start a war with Britain.

I think you must agree with this as the facts are on this issue are almost beyond dispute.

Now, if the war between Germany and Britain was the World War, who started it?

It was Britain that declared war on Germany, not the other way around. The question of whether Britain was justified or not is a separate question. Britain had justification, in my view, when Germany took over Czechoslovakia to the extent that Britain was guaranteeing the Versailles and related treaties.

[Ned]

Originally posted by BlackCat


Can you give one reason why they should not ? For thousands of years states have entered into treaties for both agressive and protective reasons. One reason could be that they wanted to prevent war by telling Germany that if they attack Poland, then they would also be in war with Britain and France; another reason could be that they knew that it would be unacceptable to the european powerbalance to have a germany including wast parts of Poland. Maybe they just were fond of the Polish nation and didn't want it to become german.

Nothing of this changes the fact that it was germany that was the agressor who started the war by invading another country.

I guess that you also agrees with hijackers that claims that it is the authorites that is responsible if they shoot a hostage because their demands aren't met.

1) I agree that Britain was trying to prevent a war with Poland by giving it the blank check, et al.

2) The balance of power idea is the true cause of Britain's interference. It gave the blank check and defensive alliance with Poland in order to preserve the balance of power. Thus the reason for Britain's interference was primarily to protect its own interests. It could not and did not want to tolerate a restored Germany on the continent.

A better analogy would have been Britain (and its allies) declaring war on Iraq in 1990 in response to Iraq's invasion of Kuwait. Had the Brits set its goal then the elimination of Saddam, and not just getting Iraq out of Kuwait, the parallel would be complete. (Many people criticize the Gulf War allies for not doing just that.)