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

[ElTigre]

BTW, I found this article while searching for English sources about Alsace-Lorraine:

http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0022-0094%28199910%2934%3A4%3C537%3ALCOEAC%3E2.0.CO%3B2-E&size=LARGE

Sadly I don't have access to JSTOR, but the department of history at my university might have that journal. I'll try to get a hold of it.

[Wycoff]

Originally posted by ElTigre
I still think that Alsace was more French than German in 1918, and was about to reply to your arguments and bolster my own, but I think we both made our position clear, and actually we aren't that far apart. So I suggest we agree to disagree. Everyone else reading this thread will be able to form his own opinion based on the arguments that have been posted.

That's fine with me. This topic is still unsettled even amongst academics. I don't have access to most of my German history books right now, but those I do have are split along the same lines that we are. If only they'd had that referrendum. Then we'd have a better answer on the topic


EDIT: Thanks for the article. I have access to JSTOR. I'll read it as soon as I can.

[Ned]

Originally posted by ElTigre


I still like to hear your opinion on the Hossbach Memo which Molly quoted. This is a key document for historians, as it proves that Hitler did indeed plan a major European war years before WW2 started.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hossbach_Memorandum

Another piece of evidence would be the Four Years Plan (1936), which aimed at preparing Germany for a major war in 1940. It was quite successful, but German rearmament happened in such a wreckless way that Germany was faced with an economic collapse in 1939/1940 should this war NOT happen. In other words, Hitler needed a war (and the resulting spoils of war) in order to avoid an economic breakdown:

http://www.papillonsartpalace.com/nazi.htm

This is not the 'usual' German talk about revising the Treaty of Versailles, Ned. This is an outline for the creation of a vast German Empire, based on the ruins of Austria, Czechoslovakia and Poland, and extending wide into eastern Europe.

El, Did you read the article you cited? It states that the theory that the memory supports the view that Hitler planned WWII is not supported by the document. What is supported is his fear of a war with France and Briton because of THEIR interference with German foreign policy, and the necessity of building up arms to face them.

Somewhat similarly, Briton feared war with Germany at the same time an was rearming at a rapid pace.

But what is clear to me, at least, is that Hitler rightly judged that Briton and France would one day DOW on Germany. They did.

From the Wiki document:

"The Memorandum is often used by intentionalist historians to prove that Hitler had planned the Second World War and some of the events which led to it. However structuralist historians would argue that the document shows no such plans. They would also contend that Britain and France's appeasement of Hitler (in his remilitarization of the Rhineland in March 1936 and the Anschluss of Austria in March 1938) had given him the confidence to exploit the situations and to move on to Czechoslovakia and Poland. This appeasement only seemed to have ended when war was declared on Hitler by Britain and France on 3 September 1939.

The first part of the document minuted Hitler's wish that Germany become an autarkic, or self sufficient, state, reasoning that a reliance on others makes a state weak. This has been labelled by some historians as a way of preparing Germany for conflict, by ensuring that it is not economically reliant on states with which it could soon be at war. The second part of the document detailed three 'contingencies' that Hitler would take if certain situations prevailed in Europe, purportedly in order to ensure the security of the Reich. Beyond that, Hitler claimed that two “hate-inspired antagonists", namely Britain and France, were blocking German foreign policy goals at every turn, and sometime in the next five years or so, Germany would have to achieve autarky by seizing Eastern Europe to prepare for a possible war with the British and the French."

[Ned]

Regarding "Upper" Silesia, it voted to stay with Germany, but only half of it was awarded to Poland. Pardon me.

Apparently, even after division, significant "minority" populations existed in each of the divided regions.

Upper Silesia is one example where the concept of "self-determination" breaks down. Kosovo, IMO, is another. One day the Serbs rule the Albanians in Kosovo and the world attacks to liberate the Albanians, ingnoring that Kosovo is also heavily populated with Serbs. The next day, the Albanians attack the Serbs in Kosovo, and lo and behold, the world has to stay in order to protect the Serbs from the Albanians. FUBAR.

"Upper Silesia plebiscite
The clause of the Treaty of Versailles demanding a plebiscite in Upper Silesia was next taken in hand. The German government had already declared during the negotiations in London that the possession of Upper Silesia was indispensable to Germany if she was to fulfil her obligations in regard to reparations. After some negotiation the plebiscite was fixed for March 20, and resulted in 717,122 votes being cast for Germany against 483,514 for Poland, the result very different from the last 1910 census, where Poles had clear 60% majority.

With the results of the Plebiscite making the ultimate fate of Upper Silesia unclear, fighting erupted in the province between insurgent Polish forces and German militias(The Third Silesian Uprising). The Germanophone section of the population made strong complaints, being firmly convinced that the French division of the Upper Silesian army of occupation was favouring the insurrection by refusing to do anything.

Twelve days after the start of the Uprising Wojciech Korfanty offered to take his Upper Silesian forces behind a line of demarcation, on condition that the released territory would not be occupied by German forces, but by Allied troops. It was not, however, till July 1 that the British troops arrived in Upper Silesia and began to advance in company with those of the Allies towards the former frontier. Simultaneously with this advance the Inter-Allied Commission pronounced a general amnesty for the illegal actions committed during the recent violence, with the exception of acts of revenge and cruelty. The German defense force was finally withdrawn and disbanded and quiet was restored.

As the Supreme Council was unable to come to an agreement on the partition of the Upper Silesian territory on the lines of the plebiscite, a solution was found by turning the question over to the Council of the League of Nations. Agreements between the Germans and Poles in Upper Silesia and appeals issued by both sides, as well as the despatch of six battalions of Allied troops and the disbandment of the local guards, contributed markedly to the pacification of the district. On the basis of the reports of a League of Nations commission and those of its experts, the Council awarded the greater part of the Upper Silesian industrial district to Poland. Poland obtained almost exactly half of the 1,950,000 inhabitants, viz., 965,000, but not quite a third of the territory, i.e., only 3,214.26 km² (1,255 mi²) out of 10,950.89 km² (4,265 mi²).

German and Polish officials, under a League of Nations recommendation, agreed to come up with protections of minority interests that would last for 15 years. Special measures were threatened in case either of the two states should refuse to participate in the drawing up of such regulations, or to accept them subsequently.

Polish Government had decided to give Upper Silesia considerable Autonomy with Silesian Parliament as a constituency and Silesian Voivodship Council as the executive body."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1921_in_Germany

[ElTigre]

El, Did you read the article you cited?

I certainly did. Even better, I read the German Wikipedia article about the Hossbach memo, which is more detailed, and the document itself.

It states that the theory that the memory supports the view that Hitler planned WWII is not supported by the document.

No, this is not what the Wikipedia article states. It says that a certain group of historians, called structuralists, deny that the memo shows a "master plan" to go to war. The article does not say however what these structuralists think about Hitler's intentions.

To cut it short, structuralist historians think that Hitler wanted war, too. However, they argue that Hitler did not have a detailed plan (as the intentionalist historians do), but was quite flexible in pursuing his aim, creating and breaking alliances at whim, and exploiting international crises as they came. The difference lies only in the means, not in the aims.

But instead of talking about different schools of historians and their interpretations of this text, why don't we talk about the memo itself, and how YOU interpret some choice quotes from it, Ned? For instance:

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/imt/hossbach.htm

The German racial community comprised over 85 million people and, because of their number and the narrow limits of habitable space in Europe, constituted a tightly packed racial core such as was not to be met in any other country and such as implied the right to a greater living space than in the case of other peoples.

The only remedy, and one which might appear to us as visionary, lay in the acquisition of greater living space -a quest which has at all times been the origin of the formation of states and of the migration of peoples. That this quest met with no interest at Geneva or among the satiated nations was understandable. If, then, we accept the security of our food situation as the principal question, the space necessary to insure it can only be sought in Europe, not, as in the liberal-capitalist view, in the exploitation of colonies. It is not a matter of acquiring population but of gaining space for agricultural use. Moreover, areas producing raw materials can be more usefully sought in Europe in immediate proximity to the Reich, than overseas; the solution thus obtained must suffice for one or two generations. Whatever else might prove necessary later must be left to succeeding generations to deal with. The development of great world political constellations progressed but slowly after all, and the German people with its strong racial core would find the most favorable prerequisites for such achievement in the heart of the continent of Europe. The history of all ages- the Roman Empire and the British Empire- had proved that expansion could only be carried out by breaking down resistance and taking risks; setbacks were inevitable. There had never in former times been spaces without a master, and there were none today; the attacker always comes up against a possessor.

Germany's problem could only be solved by means of force and this was never without attendant risk

For the improvement of our politico-military position our first objective, in the event of our being embroiled in war, must be to overthrow Czechoslovakia and Austria simultaneously in order to remove the threat to our flank in any possible operation against the West.

[Ned]

Originally posted by ElTigre


He wanted only a RR corridor, no Autobahn. Danzig and a railway line - is this reason enough to go to war, Ned? Also consider the treaty Germany had signed with Poland in 1934. Remember: international treaties cannot be "canceled" before they expire, you have to break them.

Can you blame Poland for not being willing to compromise after what happened to Czechoslovakia (minus Sudetenland) in March 1939? A German corridor to Danzig and the occupation of this city by German troops would have seriously weakened the Polish defenses. Don't you think there's a connection here?

I

I have REPEATEDLY said that I fully understood the effect Czechoslovakia had on the hardening Polish position.

What I have not heard from any defenders of Briton is even the slightest hint of a concession that the British guarantee given soon after the German takeover of Czechoslovakia may have had at least some reinforcing effect on the Polish hard line.

As to whether war was justified over the corridor and Danzig, that applies both to Warsaw and to Berlin. If one does not negotiate, the other side has no recourse but to declare war or give up. I think it is clear that Warsaw expected a war and expected to win because of British and French support.

To back this thesis up a bit, look at Czechoslovakia. After the four powers awarded the Sudetenland to Germany, Czechoslovakia refused to agree. They soon changed their position though. Why?

Because Briton informed them that they would not go to war over the Sudetenland.

Now, what would have happened had Briton said the opposite (this assumes no Munich agreement and just bilateral talks between Germany and Czecholovakia)?

What the defenders of Briton refuse to accept is any British responsibility for what happened. The states of Czechoslovakia and Poland were created by Versailles and depended upon continued British support for their existence. They knew this. Briton knew this. Germany knew this. Everyone knew this.

But here it is denied.

[Ned]

El Tigre, there is nothing in the memo that is inconsistent with what I have already said. Hitler was aware that his plans in the East might be met with a British DOW, and he was planning for it.

What Briton-defenders want you to beleive is that Hitler planned to attack Briton. That is highly inconsistent with the memo itself and, as you say, to the view of more recent historians.

[Ned]

El Tigre, I think your view that the Jews of Poland thought of themselves as patriotic Poles and considered that the only division between themselves and other Poles to be religion is, pun intended, beyond the pale.

[ElTigre]

That's the Pale, the area in which the Jews in Russia were forced to live by the Russian government until 1917. What's your point?

[ElTigre]

Originally posted by Ned

What the defenders of Briton refuse to accept is any British responsibility for what happened. The states of Czechoslovakia and Poland were created by Versailles and depended upon continued British support for their existence. They knew this. Briton knew this. Germany knew this. Everyone knew this.

But here it is denied.

I certainly do blame Britain and France for what happened. I blame them for appeasing Germany after 1933. I blame them for not sending troops to Germany when Hitler remilitarized the Rhineland. I blame them for not making a firm stand at the Munich Conference. I blame them for not declaring war on Germany in March 1939, when German troops entered Prague.

You seem to hold it against Britain and France that they went to war in 1939, blaming them that the invasion of Poland turned into WW2. I thank God that they did. They should have done so much earlier.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Ned


I have REPEATEDLY said that I fully understood the effect Czechoslovakia had on the hardening Polish position.

What I have not heard from any defenders of Briton is even the slightest hint of a concession that the British guarantee given soon after the German takeover of Czechoslovakia may have had at least some reinforcing effect on the Polish hard line.

As to whether war was justified over the corridor and Danzig, that applies both to Warsaw and to Berlin. If one does not negotiate, the other side has no recourse but to declare war or give up. I think it is clear that Warsaw expected a war and expected to win because of British and French support.

To back this thesis up a bit, look at Czechoslovakia. After the four powers awarded the Sudetenland to Germany, Czechoslovakia refused to agree. They soon changed their position though. Why?

Because Briton informed them that they would not go to war over the Sudetenland.

Now, what would have happened had Briton said the opposite (this assumes no Munich agreement and just bilateral talks between Germany and Czecholovakia)?

What the defenders of Briton refuse to accept is any British responsibility for what happened. The states of Czechoslovakia and Poland were created by Versailles and depended upon continued British support for their existence. They knew this. Briton knew this. Germany knew this. Everyone knew this.

But here it is denied.

There is zero british responsibility for ww2. The best britain could have done is to attack germany even before germany shredded the munich agreement.

If poland negotiated the transfer of requested lands to Germany because it was sure germany would defeat it in a war the result would be that Germany would have fabricated a border incident as a pretense for war and would have invaded the rest of poland intent on preventing it from ever becoming a country again.

If a terrible outcome cannot be avoided by Britain no matter what it chose to do or not do then we certainly can't hold it responsible for the terrible outcome.

I can't believe you honestly think that after poland negotiated away all disputed territories that Hitler would have suddenly said "well that's that then. That's all I can fairly expect to get. Time to call it job done and behave like a civilized country."

But I can't see any other way to interpret your assertion that british guarantees to Poland somehow make them responsible for ww2.

Have you ever considered the (appallingly obvious) possibility that Britain actually hoped those guarentees might serve to deter hitler? IE that they were an honest effort to avert a larger war?

Every point I'm making here has been spelt out for you before (more expertly in fact). It's starting to look like this is some sort of weird self depreciating trolling on your part.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by ElTigre


I certainly do blame Britain and France for what happened. I blame them for appeasing Germany after 1933. I blame them for not sending troops to Germany when Hitler remilitarized the Rhineland. I blame them for not making a firm stand at the Munich Conference. I blame them for not declaring war on Germany in March 1939, when German troops entered Prague.

You seem to hold it against Britain and France that they went to war in 1939, blaming them that the invasion of Poland turned into WW2. I thank God that they did. They should have done so much earlier.

QFT

[Ned]

Originally posted by ElTigre


I certainly do blame Britain and France for what happened. I blame them for appeasing Germany after 1933. I blame them for not sending troops to Germany when Hitler remilitarized the Rhineland. I blame them for not making a firm stand at the Munich Conference. I blame them for not declaring war on Germany in March 1939, when German troops entered Prague.

You seem to hold it against Britain and France that they went to war in 1939, blaming them that the invasion of Poland turned into WW2. I thank God that they did. They should have done so much earlier.

We agree, to a point. If Briton and France were going to enforce Versailles, they should have done so consistently from the very beginning. Instead, by a variety of acts, they lead Hitler to believe they would do nothing when he invaded Poland.

Appeasement followed by a hard line lead ineluctably to the miscalculation by Hitler.

But, what of Briton? Did they miscalculate as well? Did they expect their guarantee to stop Hitler cold, or did they expect to find a pretext to DOW on Germany?

[Ned]

Originally posted by Geronimo


QFT

Geronimo, so it is your view, then, that killing tens of millions of innocent people was a fair price to pay to remove Hitler from power?

I assume that you also favor nuclear war?

[Ned]

Originally posted by ElTigre
That's the Pale, the area in which the Jews in Russia were forced to live by the Russian government until 1917. What's your point?

Let me be more blunt.

Your characterization that Jews in the Pale considered themselves to be Russians or Poles or whatever and that the only difference between them and other Russians or Poles is their religion is more than wrong, it is obscene.

http://apolyton.net/forums//newreply.php?s=&action=newreply&postid=4855181