What if Bush41 had continued to Baghdad and destroyed the Iraqi regime?

[Geronimo]

Ned the Nazis were clearly the aggressors in WW2 at least from the moment they occupied all of the czech lands in czechoslavakia. After that how could you expect any government to negotiate with that nazi government about any sort of territorial concession?

IMHO the most important reason your comparison to palestinian claims won't fly is as follows.

The status of the territories in question in palestine is completely unsettled. No sovereign state claims the west bank and the people who live there don't yet have a government that is party to any treaties defining any borders. The world consensus (such as it is) is that some sort of stable status for this area that is in political limbo needs to be negotiated between Israel and a potential new government for the people living in that unclaimed area.

That is quite different from the status of the polish corridor prior to ww2. The borders of that area had been defined by treaties between sovereign governments. Demands for negotiations to alter those arrangements would be about as well received as demands by Mexico to negotiate the borders of Texas would be received today.

There are of course quite a few additional differences that likewise favor negotiations in palestine that would not exist for nazi germany to negotiate territorial concessions from Poland but the reason I gave above should already serve as an analogy breaker.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Cyclotron


Except not, because the Palestinians didn't lose a war - the Arab states did, and the Palestinians ended up with the bill. I'd say it's a different ballgame from Germany's territorial losses in WWI, for which it had nobody to blame but itself.

I'm not going to go any further into that analysis, because the differences seem too obvious - the Germans had far larger intentions than restoring the Polish corridor and Alsace-Lorraine to their sovereignty. In only the most basic sense were Palestine and Germany of 39 alike: they both had irredentist claims. But of course, most states have had irredentist claims, and many have acted upon them. The very fact of their existence is hardly a meaningful indicator of similar situations.

True, but they succeeded to Jordan's and Egyptian's claims with the peace treaties of the '70s. If you recall, Egypt and its allies (then the UAR) basically "launched" the 6-day war trying to destroy Israel. So, in many respects, the Palestinians' claims have less merit than Germany's claims of '39 who lost a war whose origins are still being debated today even though the allies forced them to admit guilt in the Versailles treaty they forced Germany to sign.

As to Hitler's global ambitions, that's a still a lot of nonsense. He never wanted a war with England and France and was sure, even as he crossed the Polish border, that they would do nothing serious. If you think I'm blowing hot air when I say this, this is the accepted version of history, not the hyper-version we get here from molly and others who justify WWII based on Hitler's "well-known, published and oft-declared plans" to conquer England.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Geronimo
Ned the Nazis were clearly the aggressors in WW2 at least from the moment they occupied all of the czech lands in czechoslavakia. After that how could you expect any government to negotiate with that nazi government about any sort of territorial concession?

IMHO the most important reason your comparison to palestinian claims won't fly is as follows.

The status of the territories in question in palestine is completely unsettled. No sovereign state claims the west bank and the people who live there don't yet have a government that is party to any treaties defining any borders. The world consensus (such as it is) is that some sort of stable status for this area that is in political limbo needs to be negotiated between Israel and a potential new government for the people living in that unclaimed area.

That is quite different from the status of the polish corridor prior to ww2. The borders of that area had been defined by treaties between sovereign governments. Demands for negotiations to alter those arrangements would be about as well received as demands by Mexico to negotiate the borders of Texas would be received today.

There are of course quite a few additional differences that likewise favor negotiations in palestine that would not exist for nazi germany to negotiate territorial concessions from Poland but the reason I gave above should already serve as an analogy breaker.

There is merit here and I agree that the Nazi's lost a lot of legitimacy when they betrayed the deal they struck at Munich only a few months later. Whatever justice the world saw in their demands concerning Versailles quickly lost favor when Hitler breached the deal he had just made with Chamberlain.

WRT the Palestinians, they too seem to breach the deal they struck with the Israelis in the '90s, which made the Israelis a lot more reluctant to do any further deals with them.

When the Brits DOW on Germany they sent a message to the German people saying they were doing so because of all the past breaches of deals by Hitler and that negotiations were no longer possible. This is the real reason for the war, not some fantasy reasons dreamed up by molly and others that cite Hitler's plans to conquer everyone on the planet.

That is why people dismiss so easily my wish that history had not gone the way it did and that there would have been a European peace conference attended by all parties plus the USSR and the US. Had Hitler violated such a peace treaty, I too would have agreed that war necessary.

But it is clear that the Brits had come to the conclusion that no further negotiations were possible. They refused offers from all to attend any such negotiations. When Hitler crossed the border thinking the Brits would do nothing, the Brits declared war. Hitler still thought peace was possible. In this, he was clearly mistaken.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Ned


There is merit here and I agree that the Nazi's lost a lot of legitimacy when they betrayed the deal they struck at Munich only a few months later. Whatever justice the world saw in their demands concerning Versailles quickly lost favor when Hitler breached the deal he had just made with Chamberlain.

WRT the Palestinians, they too seem to breach the deal they struck with the Israelis in the '90s, which made the Israelis a lot more reluctant to do any further deals with them.

When the Brits DOW on Germany they sent a message to the German people saying they were doing so because of all the past breaches of deals by Hitler and that negotiations were no longer possible. This is the real reason for the war, not some fantasy reasons dreamed up by molly and others that cite Hitler's plans to conquer everyone on the planet.

That is why people dismiss so easily my wish that history had not gone the way it did and that there would have been a European peace conference attended by all parties plus the USSR and the US. Had Hitler violated such a peace treaty, I too would have agreed that war necessary.

But it is clear that the Brits had come to the conclusion that no further negotiations were possible. They refused offers from all to attend any such negotiations. When Hitler crossed the border thinking the Brits would do nothing, the Brits declared war. Hitler still thought peace was possible. In this, he was clearly mistaken.

You're saying that invasion and conquest of all czech lands followed by invasion and conquest of Poland plus planned invasions of the USSR (re: Mein Kampf) equals peace while DOW by the British Empire in adherence to highly visible defense treaty obligations and in accordance with official warnings of the actions which would trigger such a response equals war?



Why are Nazi invasions in the absence of a formal declaration of war somehow not a cause of ww2 while a british DOW (followed by no British invasions in the european theater at all until years later) somehow do constitute the cause of ww2?

The peace conference you describe was impossible post munich. If Hitler wanted negotiations of any kind he would have needed to step down after his utterly flagrant cynical bald faced raping of all previous negotiated agreements.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Arrian
@ Ned playing the victim. 3/10.

Your rudeness is usually carefully veiled, but it's there. I've seen it plenty ("The Left this, the Left that, Liberals this Liberals that... Europe this Europe that..." always very insulting crap). You post nonsensical, badly-source crapola as if it were the TRUTH (instead of saying, "hey, I found this on the net, is there anything to it?) and then, when proven wrong, you simply shift to another ridiculous assertion. The goalposts are always moving. Tricksey Neddy. Wicked, Tricksey, False.

So yeah, I call bull**** on your "woe is me, you people are rude to me!" whine. There are a lot of different folks here at 'poly, from different countries, with differing views of politics and history. Yet there is near-unanimous rejection your crazy theories and your supposed civility. I'm sure it's US, not you.

-Arrian

Arrian, tell me you never, ever bash Republicans and that the Europeans never bash "Americans."

I tend to react to your bashing by bashing right back. I have always found you majorly offensive in your bashing, Mr. Arrian.

As to Dems, I try to make distinctions between traditional liberals and socialists. It is the latter ideology I oppose. I support the former.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Geronimo


You're saying that invasion and conquest of all czech lands followed by invasion and conquest of Poland plus planned invasions of the USSR (re: Mein Kampf) equals peace while DOW by the British Empire in adherence to highly visible defense treaty obligations and in accordance with official warnings of the actions which would trigger such a response equals war?



Why are Nazi invasions in the absence of a formal declaration of war somehow not a cause of ww2 while a british DOW (followed by no British invasions in the european theater at all until years later) somehow do constitute the cause of ww2?

The peace conference you describe was impossible post munich. If Hitler wanted negotiations of any kind he would have needed to step down after his utterly flagrant cynical bald faced raping of all previous negotiated agreements.

The primary cause of WWII found its origins in WWI and Versailles and its accompanying treaties. The secondary cause was Munich. The reason Munich is the real secondary cause and not Poland is that Munich made any further negotiations with Hitler by either Poland or Britain virtually impossible.

What happened after the war started has nothing to do with the causes for the war or its justifications. That is why the invasion of the USSR that occurred two years after the war started had nothing to do with the British DOW.

Back to the possiblities of negotiations: Prior to the invasion of Poland, the primary obstacles to negotiations, IIRC, were the Brits and the Poles. After the breakout of war, their refusal to negotiate was reasonable if the USSR refused to participate and if Germany did not offer to withdraw from Poland and Czechoslovakia. I am sure that Stalin would not agree to any "peace" talks that would result in him getting out of his half of Poland, or that would prevent him from invading the Baltic states. But I have seen details of a private offer from Hitler that did in fact offer to get German troops out of Poland and Czechoslovakia in exchange for a LON-supervised vote on the Corridor.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Ned


The primary cause of WWII found its origins in WWI and Versailles and its accompanying treaties. The secondary cause was Munich. The reason Munich is the real secondary cause and not Poland is that Munich made any further negotiations with Hitler by either Poland or Britain virtually impossible.

What happened after the war started has nothing to do with the causes for the war or its justifications. That is why the invasion of the USSR that occurred two years after the war started had nothing to do with the British DOW.

Back to the possiblities of negotiations: Prior to the invasion of Poland, the primary obstacles to negotiations, IIRC, were the Brits and the Poles. After the breakout of war, their refusal to negotiate was reasonable if the USSR refused to participate and if Germany did not offer to withdraw from Poland and Czechoslovakia. I am sure that Stalin would not agree to any "peace" talks that would result in him getting out of his half of Poland, or that would prevent him from invading the Baltic states. But I have seen details of a private offer from Hitler that did in fact offer to get German troops out of Poland and Czechoslovakia in exchange for a LON-supervised vote on the Corridor.

Ned, even if we want to label the Versailles treaty and its accompanying treaties as the primary cause of ww2 it would in no way absolve the nazis of primary responsibility for the outbreak of ww2. In fact, at Munich all of the involved parties were well within their rights to refuse to negotiate anything! Germany had already signed the relevant treaties. If everybody else had refused to re-negotiate any of those treaties and Germany had gone to war over that refusal, responsibility for the war would still lie squarely with the Germans. Nobody was going to go to war if the Germans didn't start one. As it happened the Germans chose to start one.

The fact that the Germans chose to go to war even after the other countries tried to appease them with freebies only makes the case of German responsibility for the war even more damning.

Getting back to your proposed general European peace conference as your preferred response of the other countries to Germanys invasion of Poland why do you think this could have avoided bloodshed?

Do you think Hitler didn't really mean all the crap he spewed out in mein kampf? Have you not noticed that his chummy peace agreement with the soviet union did squat to avert war with the USSR?

If being at war with the UK, and the USSR did not prevent Hitler from declaring war on the US what on earth makes you think hitler wouldn't have chosen to bide his time and then wipe his arse with your general peace conference agreement just like he did with munich?

In fact judging by mein kampf and all other biographical information we have on Hitler we can confidently say there is nothing anybody outside of germany could have done to avert the bloodshed of ww2 once Poland was invaded. Had everybody just rolled over and kept signing everything away he would have enacted his plan to colonise all eastern europe with german farmers while marginalizing and exterminating the non german populations in conscious imitation of the european settlers treatment of the native peoples in the americas. Gee good thing we avoided the war!

Ned, we have the benefit of 20/20 hindsight here we can actually see what a warmongering POS hitler was. How can you seriously entertain the notion of absolving the nazis of responsibility for ww2?

[ElTigre]

Originally posted by Ned


There is merit here and I agree that the Nazi's lost a lot of legitimacy when they betrayed the deal they struck at Munich only a few months later. Whatever justice the world saw in their demands concerning Versailles quickly lost favor when Hitler breached the deal he had just made with Chamberlain.

Don't forget the German-Polish Non-Aggression Pact. Signed in 1934. Duration: 10 years. Broken in 1939 by Germany.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish-German_Non-Aggression_Pact

Should any disputes arise between them and agreement thereon not be reached by direct negotiation, they will in each particular case, on the basis of mutual agreement, seek a solution by other peaceful means, without prejudice to the possibility of applying, if necessary, those methods of procedure in which provision is made for such cases in other agreements in force between them. In no circumstances, however, will they proceed to the application of force for the purpose of reaching a decision in such disputes.

[...]

The declaration is valid for a period of ten years, reckoned from the day of the exchange of the instruments of ratification.

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/wwii/bluebook/blbk01.htm

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Ned

Stalin's aggressiveness in extenting his empire was unmatched.

Long on rhetoric, short on the facts- the usual Ned.

Which dictator didn't wait for the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact to absorb Austria, dismember Czechoslovakia and kill his domestic political opponents ?

Adolf Hitler.

Which party fomented opposition to democratically elected governments in neighbouring countries and sponsored a coup against the government of Austrian Chancellor, Engelbert Dollfuss ?

The Nazi Party of Germany.

Which dictator was frustrated that there WASN'T armed opposition to his occupation of the remainder of the Czech Republic (he claimed Chamberlain had robbed him of a triumphal entry into Prague!) ?

Adolf Hitler


Which dictator and army had long-term plans for the invasion, occupation and exploitation of Poland, European Russia and neutral states in Western Europe ?

Adolf Hitler and the German High Command.


Must try harder Ned- perhaps against people whose parents or grandparents weren't involved in the war, or who didn't grow up surrounded by the ruined cities of post-war Europe and are all too familiar with the effects of propaganda, lies and misinformation.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Ned

the Palestinians' claims have less merit than Germany's claims of '39 who lost a war whose origins are still being debated today even though the allies forced them to admit guilt in the Versailles treaty they forced Germany to sign.

Who was forced by whom Ned ?


You keep repeating this canard, and when asked for the relevant details fail miserably to produce them.

Signing the peace treaty and admitting guilt were the price to be paid to keep Germany as a sovereign state- after all, despite the post-treaty lies of the failed militarists, the German armed forces and more importantly, the German economy, had been beaten, and had not been stabbed in the back by the Socialists, the Jews or domestic 'defeatists'.

There was no alternative to signing Versailles except occupation by foreign armies and possible dismemberment. You cannot wage a war of aggression and expect to gain if you are defeated.

Except for the parts concerning national self-determination for the peoples of the former Habsburg and Ottoman and Tsarist Empires, Versailles was in the main not very different from the punitive treaties imposed by a victorious Prussia and Austria on Denmark, by Prussia and its allies on Austria-Hungary and its allies, or by the Germans on France in the Franco-Prussian War.

Bismarck had even punished German cities that hadn't directly opposed him in the Austro-Prussian War- they were simply too liberal and independent-minded for his liking.

As to Hitler's global ambitions, that's a still a lot of nonsense.

Yeah right Ned.

Is the rest of Europe within the ambit of these 'global ambitions' which Hitler allegedly didn't have ?

By the occupation and dismemberment of Czechoslovakia and the occupation of the Rhineland and Austria, Hitler achieved several things: a grossly enlarged German state, a greatly increased military and the acquisition of the Czech armaments works at Skoda and Pilzen. He brought into Nazi Germany's orbit the states of Yugoslavia, Hungary and Rumania (Yugoslavia and Rumania had previously exported agricultural products and raw materials to Czechoslovakia in exchange for arms and finished goods which were not produced domestically and for Czech investment and capital ).

Hungary had previously had long-term economic links with Austria, and although it had expanded its trade with Italy to attempt a sort of independence from Nazi domination, because of Italy's foolhardy and costly adventures in Spain and Ethiopia, Hungary was forced to switch its focus of trade towards Nazi Germany.

Hitler had sent aid, planes and arms to Franco's Spain.

Bulgaria was already a Nazi trading partner, so it looks like Hitler was acting locally but already thinking globally, wouldn't you say ?

He never wanted a war with England and France and was sure, even as he crossed the Polish border, that they would do nothing serious.

Not true.

He didn't really want a simultaneous war with France and Great Britain in the West and Poland in the East.

As the French Charge d'Affaires in Berlin reported to Paris on April 11th 1939:

For the first time the Third Reich has come up against a categorical no; for the first time a country has clearly expressed its determination to oppose force by force, and to reply to any unilateral movement with rifles and guns.

This is the kind of language that is understood in Germany.

But they have not been used to hearing it for a long time.

It has also been difficult for them to believe their ears, and they still do not depair of wearing down Polish resistance in the long run.

M. de Vaux St. Cyr to M. Bonnet, 11th April 1939 on the occasion of the visit of the Polish Foreign Minister to London and the Anglo-polish mutual assistance pact.

On the 14th April 1939, President Roosevelt had sent a message to Mussolini and Hitler (following the Italian invasion of Albania the previous week).

He asked if they would both consent to give assurances that they were not aggressively inclined to various countries- :

Are you willing to give assurance that your armed forces will not attack or invade the territory or possessions of the following independent nations: Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, The Netherlands, Belgium, Great Britain and Ireland, France, Portugal, Spain, Switzerland, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Poland, Hungary, Rumania,
Yugoslavia, Russia, Bulgaria, Greece, Turkey, Iraq, the Arabias, Syria, Palestine, Egypt and Iran.

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/wwii/bluebook/blbk124.htm

Hitler's reply on 28th April was the usual attempt at self-justification for his aggressive foreign policy. In this he was acting as he so often did, creating a defence which could then serve as a justification for new acts of aggression.

He then went on to attack Great Britain, Poland, and the 'international warmongers' of the democratic nations who had gone to such lengths to misrepresent the aims of Hitler and Nazi Germany, exalted the efforts of the German and Italian armed forces in the Spanish Civil War (no contradiction there then...) and extolled the armed might of the Axis Powers, saying that Albania was naturally Lebensraum for Italy.

The weasel words of Herr Hitler:

I have brought back to the Reich provinces stolen from us in 1919, I have led back to their native country millions of Germans who were torn away from us and living in misery, I have re-established the historic unity of German living-space- and, Mr. Roosevelt, I have endeavoured to attain all this without spilling blood and without bringing to my people, and consequently to others, the misery of war.

Speech to the Reichstag 28th April 1939

'Without spilling blood' ?

No attempted coup in Austria, no terrorist activities and provocations by Nazi agents in the Sudetenland or Poland or Danzig, no Guernica, no 'Night of the Long Knives', no Kristallnacht, no concentration camps for political opponents and undesirables...?

No truth to it at all.

As Elizabeth Wiskemann notes in 'Europe of the Dictators, 1919-1945':

...Ciano went to Berlin to sign the Pact of Steel on 22nd May, 1939. The Italians had left the final drafting to the Germans and were now bound to come to Hitler's aid if he 'became involved in warlike complications.'

Hitler had inspired a frankly aggressive treaty: as Mussolini noted, there was no need for a defensive one, since no one intended to attack the Axis Powers.

Of course you probably don't believe Wiskemann- she had an English mother (although a German father) and was a 'guest' of the Gestapo and blacklisted by the Nazis.

not the hyper-version we get here from molly and others who justify WWII based on Hitler's "well-known, published and oft-declared plans" to conquer England.

Could you indicate where I have talked about Hitler's 'well-known, blah blah blah' et cetera plans to conquer England ?

Or even mentioned them ?

Not only do you not provide sources for your own mistaken notions, you then misattribute statements to others, without even having the grace to quote them directly.

Shame must be an alien concept to you.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Ned

This is the real reason for the war, not some fantasy reasons dreamed up by molly and others that cite Hitler's plans to conquer everyone on the planet.

Which of us has quoted, directly, Hitler's war directives, his writings and his speeches ?

Given dates for them, placed them in historical context ?

Me.


Which of us has referenced a Holocaust denying historian who was found to have lied and distorted and omitted evidence in open court ?

Hs referred to an openly anti-semitic website for his 'facts' ?

Has referred to alleged 'scholarly support' for his opinion that the Final Solution was only brought about by the continuation of the war by the Allies ?
(said support was never forthcoming)

Has never bothered to directly quote at any length, Hitler's own words either to the Reichstag, the Nuremberg rallies or to early Nazi Party meetings, has never mentioned in any detail the domestic terror of the Nazi regime, or its attempts to destabilise the Czech and Austrian and Polish governments and even tried to imply that Poland's Jewish population was living mainly in the area invaded by Stalin ?

You, Ned.

[Ned]

Originally posted by molly bloom



Who was forced by whom Ned ?


You keep repeating this canard, and when asked for the relevant details fail miserably to produce them.

Signing the peace treaty and admitting guilt were the price to be paid to keep Germany as a sovereign state- after all, despite the post-treaty lies of the failed militarists, the German armed forces and more importantly, the German economy, had been beaten, and had not been stabbed in the back by the Socialists, the Jews or domestic 'defeatists'.

There was no alternative to signing Versailles except occupation by foreign armies and possible dismemberment. You cannot wage a war of aggression and expect to gain if you are defeated.

Here is a photo of the front page of the Berlin times the day the treaty was signed. The word "diktat" is used. There is no ambiguity in the German response to the treaty they were "forced to sign." They were appalled and angry beyond words.

I can give you many more quotes, etc. But many on the allied side also thought the treaty wrong and that it would only lead to war. Don't ask me for quotes, as this is more than common knowledge.

See:

http://history.oakham.rutland.sch.uk/pupils/DBurrows.pdf

" Woodrow Wilson betrayed us on every
promise he made to our people and now Germany
will lose 70,000 sq km (27,350 sq mi) with some
six and a half million inhabitants. This is not
what we were promised when we agreed to the
cease fire.
The diktat, that we are forced to sign,
spits Germany in half. Poland is now getting
our land in West Prussia as a corridor! Why
must we put up with this?
To defend ourselves we will have all of a
hundred thousand men. This is less than a thirtieth
of the French forces currently mobilised. No
Air force, no Battleships only five Cruisers, and
no Submarines. We shall not be able to defend
ourselves.
Germany now is being forced to sign
this diktat and rightful riots of people are all over
the country in arms against this outrage. The
Allies did not consult us or Austria Hungary or
anyone else, just three greedy people with pens
and a map have stolen our people and land. This
is unacceptable, but they are making us accept it!"

[Ned]

Originally posted by molly bloom


Which of us has quoted, directly, Hitler's war directives, his writings and his speeches ?

Given dates for them, placed them in historical context ?

Me.


Which of us has referenced a Holocaust denying historian who was found to have lied and distorted and omitted evidence in open court ?

Hs referred to an openly anti-semitic website for his 'facts' ?

Has referred to alleged 'scholarly support' for his opinion that the Final Solution was only brought about by the continuation of the war by the Allies ?
(said support was never forthcoming)

Has never bothered to directly quote at any length, Hitler's own words either to the Reichstag, the Nuremberg rallies or to early Nazi Party meetings, has never mentioned in any detail the domestic terror of the Nazi regime, or its attempts to destabilise the Czech and Austrian and Polish governments and even tried to imply that Poland's Jewish population was living mainly in the area invaded by Stalin ?

You, Ned.

Crap.

I did, or others did, and I can't stand you constantly asking for references when they were already given in this discussion, either here or in other threads.

As to the location of the Jewish population, I did further research and found that about half of Poland's Jews lived in the Soviet area. After the responses given to my question here on this board, I, and others reading this thread, were lead to believe that all the Jews of Poland lived in the German occuppied areas.

But your medacity in lying about my not supporting my factual assertions when I or others have done so is just a bit too much.

One more thing, both the Brits and the Germans were frantically trying to line up allies in Europe from 1939 onwords. Both were preparing for war as Briton had flung down the guantlet in May of that year.

Your obsession about the Jews is laudable in its compassion, but I still maintain that their fate had nothing to do with the reasons the war broke out.

[ElTigre]

That's not a REAL newspaper, Ned. A pupil of Oakham School made this newspaper page.

http://history.oakham.rutland.sch.uk/taste4.htm

On Nov. 11th 1918, the powers hadn't even met at Versailles yet...

[Ned]

Originally posted by Geronimo



Ned, even if we want to label the Versailles treaty and its accompanying treaties as the primary cause of ww2 it would in no way absolve the nazis of primary responsibility for the outbreak of ww2. In fact, at Munich all of the involved parties were well within their rights to refuse to negotiate anything! Germany had already signed the relevant treaties. If everybody else had refused to re-negotiate any of those treaties and Germany had gone to war over that refusal, responsibility for the war would still lie squarely with the Germans. Nobody was going to go to war if the Germans didn't start one. As it happened the Germans chose to start one.

The fact that the Germans chose to go to war even after the other countries tried to appease them with freebies only makes the case of German responsibility for the war even more damning.

Getting back to your proposed general European peace conference as your preferred response of the other countries to Germanys invasion of Poland why do you think this could have avoided bloodshed?

Do you think Hitler didn't really mean all the crap he spewed out in mein kampf? Have you not noticed that his chummy peace agreement with the soviet union did squat to avert war with the USSR?

If being at war with the UK, and the USSR did not prevent Hitler from declaring war on the US what on earth makes you think hitler wouldn't have chosen to bide his time and then wipe his arse with your general peace conference agreement just like he did with munich?

In fact judging by mein kampf and all other biographical information we have on Hitler we can confidently say there is nothing anybody outside of germany could have done to avert the bloodshed of ww2 once Poland was invaded. Had everybody just rolled over and kept signing everything away he would have enacted his plan to colonise all eastern europe with german farmers while marginalizing and exterminating the non german populations in conscious imitation of the european settlers treatment of the native peoples in the americas. Gee good thing we avoided the war!

Ned, we have the benefit of 20/20 hindsight here we can actually see what a warmongering POS hitler was. How can you seriously entertain the notion of absolving the nazis of responsibility for ww2?

Hitler was indeed a POS. But, so was Stalin. How did we handle Stalin? Did we DOW on him at every outrage? No. We built up our strenght, fought him and his successors in the periphery (Korea, Vietnam), provided aid to their opponets (Afghanistan) and negotiated as best as possible (Nixon's deal on missle reduction, for example.) In time, the vile communist regime collapsed.

Now, how can one praise how we dealt with Stalin and condemn the same approach with Hitler? Is there a double standard? Or do we always want to start wars that will kill tens of millions for the purpose of making a point about abiding by treaties that are forced on a regime because they lost a war. (The Iraq war comes to mind here, although the cost in human life is not so appalling.)

As to Poland, you have to acknowledge that history accepts the view that the reason Hitler attacked was primarily because he didn't believe Briton would do anything serious. This is the "received wisdom" of the folly of appeasement. The judgment of history says that Hitler miscalculated.

Which is why I think that the real cause of WWII in the secondary sense was Munich. Hitler, of course must share the blame for Munich because he violated it soon after. But that does not absolve Briton and France for being so shortsighted and stupid to think that Germany would not continue to try to unravel all of Versailles just because of this one concession.