Who Is Responsible for World War 2? Could It Have Been Avoided?

[Comrade the Colonel]

The German army was way more advanced than the Polish.

[Luger]

Germans could only fight for 1 more week after The Polish Defensive war had ended. If not Russian Attack from the East and Rydz Smigly's sad commanding Poland could have kicked German butt. I ask you, why was the French Invasion postponed half a year later after 1939? Because Germany was repairing their army from their damages in Poland.

Why could Germans lose with the Poles?
1) Because Germans were almost out of oil and ammunition
2) Germany took half of Poland the other half was planning a large counterattack what Germans could not handle with their lack of supplies.
3) Poland had weapons that did not rely on Ammunition or Oil like Saber and Horse.

Your "post" showed your lack of historical information as well as ignorance. WWII was not a game that you get infinite supplies, the supplies were limited that Germany, "The Great War Machine", got their oil and ammuntion from Russia after The Polish Defensive War.

I will try answering this with the lack of historical information as you mentioned.

"Why was the French Invasion postponed half a year later after 1939?"

1. Because they could. The Allies didn't attack now did they?
2. Battledamage repairs, like they did after the Battle of France. Nobody is saying that the German army wasn't damaged after the Polish campaign.
3. Implement leason learned from the campaign.

Why would Poland lose:

1. Tank superiority
2. Air superiority
3. Numbers (950.000 Poles against 1.500.000 Germans...)
4. Germany took half of Poland already
5. The German army could handle supply shortages, they proved it in the last year/months of the war
6. Poland had weapons that did not rely on Ammunition or Oil like Saber and Horse

Tell me how Poland could have kicked German butt, I am dying to know

[Markas]

Yes maybe the Polish could prevail were the French, Belgian, Dutch and BEF have failed?
I see, betrayal from inside stopped this fighting machine the world has never seen before.

No, the fact they halted deployment after taking questionable western advice to avoid 'provoking' Hitler.

Taking forces into account, there is little reason in a 1 on 1 fight the Poles could not have fended off the German invasion. They had about 700 planes to Germany's 3,000, but the USSR had 8,000 in 1939 and that didn't stop them gettting steamrolled in '41. Poland's biggest strategic error was defending the borders rather than defending from advantageous terrain. In terms of men, the Poles fielded about 800,000 vs 1,250,000, quite comparable taking into account they were on home ground and could get troops to the front alot quicker.

Capable and courageous yes, but could kick German butt, never.
Maybe these winged cavalry lifted expectations to high?

Well, lets have it then.

The Polish army if not attacked by the Soviets would have been run over anyways, I mean horse and saber vs tanks?

Excuse me? It was a Geobbels propaganda stroke that unbelievably is still believed today. The cavalry was caught in a forest and tried to break out. Had Poland not listened to the western allies and put there tanks into dedicated armoured forces it is likely that German mounted uhlans would have been overun by Polish tanks. The German army was never fully motorized and was like every army in 1939 dependent on the horse for recon, flanking and communication.

The Poles themselves are partially to blame for the myth- it feeds the age-old self-belief of reckless, romantic bravery.

[Каие]

I blame the French. In 1936, Hitler stepped into the Rhineland with 3,000 infantry and 10 planes flying overhead. Meanwhile in Germany, the Generals of the Army thought this was a terrible idea and were sure that the French would seek to preserve Versailles and stop Hitler. The Generals had planned a coup in the event of the French entering the Rhineland. However the French themselves dithered and delayed until nothing can could be done, all because Britain did not interfere.

The Rhine acquisition was crucial for Hitler. It gave him the Foreign policy initiative after 1936, he was the one leading whilst Britain and France were reacting. It allowed him to get all the things he wanted that way. Austria, to an Army to Bohemia. Secondly, it solidified his position in Germany as the leader. He became instantly popular with the people, the Generals had lost their opportunity to remove him and people now trusted his foreign policy judgement, where before they were cautious. Lastly, it enforced in everyone's mind the image of a cowardly, useless and decadent French Republic and British Empire which gave Hitler the confidence to piss on Versailles and rattle his sabre, eventually culminating into war.

[Comrade the Colonel]

The French werent the only ones who were supposed to stop his invasion of the RHineland, Britain was too.

[Markas]

The French werent the only ones who were supposed to stop his invasion of the RHineland, Britain was too.

With what? Our mighty land-ships?

[Каие]

No, they weren't. At all. The Rhineland clause was FRENCH, the French pushed for it at Versailles to protect their eastern border, it was their responsibility. Secondly, Britain didn't have a border with Germany, Britain could hardly quickly send men across the border now could they.

[Comrade the Colonel]

The French should have provided the majority of the troops, but Britain should have contributed.

[Markas]

The French should have provided the majority of the troops, but Britain should have contributed.

It wouldn't have been worth contributing 10 divisions or so across to France. The French wouldn't have needed us.

[Каие]

The French should have provided the majority of the troops, but Britain should have contributed.

It's a pity people can't be bothered to read any more. Hitler sent 3,000 men across the Rhine. Overnight. Tell me exactly how Britain could have contributed in such a short space of time... baring in mind the French dithering stopped France from sending anyone.

[Comrade the Colonel]

i didnt say that Britain had to send them overnight, I just said that they could have contributed to the troops sent there, If the French army went to take the German army out of the Rhineland, and Britain had troops on the way, the Germans would have backed down.

[Alsatian]

Your previous position was that its all Germany's fault. Well, finally we agree on something, that there is a shared responsibility. For sure Germany has got its share of guilt, but so do other nations involved and I don't see why Germany should be seen as the evil aggressor in WWI. For more info check Gsoxx's post, which I don't need to repeat.



No it was not, as I said many times now Germany had no goals at all in the west, the western war was more or less forced upon Germany by strategic thinking and the logic of warfare. You remember, avoiding the two-fronts war by neutralising France as quickly as possible, since Russia was seen as the tougher and more dangerous enemy. As we know it failed. Again check Gsoxx's post here, since he already explained the War Council related issue in his latest post.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Verdammt nochmal Gsoxx, lass mir was übrig

No, the Schlieffen plan was offensive defense. In no way it was a plan of aggression for the sake of aggression as you portray it. The Schlieffen plan tried to find a solution for Germany, beeing situated in the centre of Europe in case of aggression by Russia and France. It simply tried to deal with the situation and to prevent Germany from beeing crushed by Russia and France.



Again your favourite "source" Wiki? It is not my problem, that you've never read the original Treaty of Brest-Litovsk, but dare to judge it solely based on the information of Wikipedia. Nowhere in the Treaty it is said that the Germans would set German kings and dukes in power, but it is said that it will be decided on the future of these countries in accordance with the population there and that German troops will be removed as soon as law and order will be guaranteed by these people themselves. There isn't a single document and source which would prove, that the Germans planed to set up German monarchies there, while this sentence in the English Wiki neither isn't backed by secondary literature nor any source. Very credibly I must say.



You even can't read German, but dare to judge again on something you've got no idea of. That's exactly what I meant, when I said you make an ass out of yourself more and more.
Germany's historigraphic discourse is as much liberated and extensive as the English speaking one and guess what, many native English speaking historians can speak German and even take part, since this is the West, English publications influence German historic discourse, just like the other way round. We're not Eastern Europe, where we write history based on nationalism.



Fine, appologise accepted.



I didn't talk about genocides, there haven't been any. I was talking about permanent provocation an humiliation of German citizen by French military personal, which naturally only followed the orders of their commanders.



No, you don't have to expect that. Wilsons humane plan was neglected in many ways, since it disrespected the right of self-determination of Germans as I said previously.



Could you back that up without Wiki?
I showed you parts of the Treaty and translated some key sentences already. Maybe the states should have been loyal to Germany, since it was Germany, who liberated them from Soviet oppression, but that doesn't mean it was planed to install German rulers. To the contrary the Treaty speaks of deciding on their future in accordance with their people. This was the 20th century already, you know. Your English Wiki quote, which isn't backed up at all is just ridiculous, which speaks of installing German kings and dukes, just because the German Empire was a constitutional monarchy



Again check gsoxx's latest post on that matter. Sadly he's been quicker than me.



Again, Germany didn't occupy these territories in order to make them German. Germany liberated people from Soviet oppression, nevertheless Germany naturally followed it's own interests,too, by weakening Soviet Russia and creating independent, but pro-German states.
--------------------------------------------

No comment on King Peter, he's one of the best examples of the current, widespread mindset in Poland.

God, I'm not going to go through piece by piece with this uneducated rubbish.

I'm going to end the discussion here, with a few quotes from people WHO ACTUALLY KNOW WHAT THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT, concerning the primary cause of WWI:

L.C.B. Seaman, From Vienna to Versailles, 1988, p.171

"Finally, the historical tradition of the Reich knew no principle other than that of the exercise of power for its own sake. The very phrases Weltpolitik and Flottenpolitik reveal in their puposelessness that the Reich had no aim but to be powerful for the sake of being powerful. To have an aim implies a readiness not merely to take action but also to limit action to what is essential to the achievement of the aim. To have a principle necessarily involves the exercise of restraint whenever action threatens to contradict the principle. Thus, all other powers could point to specific ambitions which they would like to satisfy. France could point to Alsace-Lorraine; Russia could point to Constantinople; England to the defence of the seas and her empire; Austria-Hungary to the destruction of Serbia. But nothing could satisfy the Germans, because they had no aims to satisfy; and nothing could satisfy the principles Germany stood for, since Germany did not stand for any. Thus diplomacy could not settle Germany's problems, because there were no problems which could be solved. There was only blind incoherent force, which nobody could negotiate because it had no co-ordinating brain or directing intelligence. The Germans stampeded into the war, the mindless and purposeless victims of their own monstrous history"

Gordon Martel, The Origins of the First World War, 1989, p.46

"The first fateful step towards war was taken by Austria Hungary when her government decided that the moment had come to "solve" the problem of Slav nationalism when the heir to the throne was assassinated at Sarajevo... But there would not have been a war if Russia had declined to mobilise in support of Serbia.. The July crisis was, in essence, an Austro-Russian one; the transformation of that crisis into a world war was the responsibility of Germany."

Donald Kagan, On the Origins of War and the Preservation of Peace, 1995, p.212

"After the Franco-Prussian War Bismarck judged it to be in interests of Germany to exercise restraint and maintain the peace of Europe. For 20 years under his guidance Germany accepted the major burden of keeping the peace by maintaining a powerful military force and using it to help avoid war. When Wilhelm II and his ministers abandoned that role and became the chief menace to the status quo and the peace of Europe, the only power capable of taking its place and checking the movement towards war was Great Britain. Reluctantly, slowly, and ultimately inadequately, the British assumed some part of that burden."

A.J.P. Taylor, War By Timetable: How the First World War Began, 1969, p.121

"When cut down to esentials, the sole cause for the outbreak of war in 1914 was the Shlieffen Plan - product of the belief in speed and the offensive. Diplomacy functioned only until the German demand that France and Russia should not mobilise. No power could have accepted such a demand in the circumstances of the age."

To conclude this discussion, I'd like to say that I do believe that there is more than one cause concerning WWI. However, it is my belief based on what I have read that the primary cause of the war was indeed Germany, whether through its Military Staff's eagerness, Wilhelm's warmongering or Germany's relations with Austria. You may disagree with that view, and you're entitled to. However, regardless of the causes of the war, concerning the earlier discussion of the Versailles Treaty, the treaty was NOT HARSH, but actually very lenient. Was it a cause of WWII? Only through its manipulation and the exaggeration of its supposed "harshness" to rouse German nationalism and aid Hitler's goal of European dominance.

[Каие]

i didnt say that Britain had to send them overnight, I just said that they could have contributed to the troops sent there, If the French army went to take the German army out of the Rhineland, and Britain had troops on the way, the Germans would have backed down.

Again, you have simply not bothered to read.

1. The Germans had only 3,000 men
2. Hitler had given the order that if the French stepped over the border they had to retreat
3. If the French stepped over the border the Generals would have instigated a coup

[gsoxx]

It's a pity people can't be bothered to read any more. Hitler sent 3,000 men across the Rhine. Overnight. Tell me exactly how Britain could have contributed in such a short space of time... baring in mind the French dithering stopped France from sending anyone.

Britain could have contributed by unconditionally siding with France for example and encouraging her to take the necessary steps. Such support would have been immensely more important than a few thousand men. They didn't, they left her most important Ally on the continent essentially alone.
I am also a little bit amazed that you think that the whole Rhineland clause only affected the French. Everything that significantly shifted the power balance on the continent had to be a major concern for British diplomacy. Germany securing her industrial heartland was such a shift.

[UnitedIreland]

I believe that the cause of WW2 is the 1929 Wall Street Crash and the devastating effects it had in Germany. Up until the crash, Germany had been living in a 'golden era'. The people were happy and they were starting to think that democracy was working. Whenever the crash happened, Germany was crippled and the people blamed the democratic government. Hitler saw his chance and he took advantage of the situation and he used the political turmoil to get into power. Without the crash, the political conditions which led to Hitlers rise to power wouldn't have happened. I know the crash isn't to blame but I can't help but think that without it maybe Hitler's rise to power wouldn't have happened.

[Comrade the Colonel]

Again, you have simply not bothered to read.

1. The Germans had only 3,000 men
2. Hitler had given the order that if the French stepped over the border they had to retreat
3. If the French stepped over the border the Generals would have instigated a coup

You brits are quick to forget your own responsibilities and lay all the blame on someone else. France wasnt the only one to sign the Treaty of Versailles. Just because the Rhineland isnt bordered with Britain doesnt mean that they couldnt have sent some help. I dont care how long it would have taken, they should have done it.

[Каие]

You brits are quick to forget your own responsibilities and lay all the blame on someone else. France wasnt the only one to sign the Treaty of Versailles. Just because the Rhineland isnt bordered with Britain doesnt mean that they couldnt have sent some help. I dont care how long it would have taken, they should have done it.

No Brit here is ''quick to forget their own responsibilities''. You'll remember Britain was almost destroyed in the later war. But let's turn the tables shall we.... America was also a contributor or signatory of Versailles, where were they all this time? Why did the USA not condemn Germany and send a military force.... since ''Just because the Rhineland isnt bordered with Britain America doesnt mean that they couldnt have sent some help. I dont care how long it would have taken, they should have done it.''.... to quote you.

Britain could have contributed by unconditionally siding with France for example and encouraging her to take the necessary steps. Such support would have been immensely more important than a few thousand men. They didn't, they left her most important Ally on the continent essentially alone.

I am also a little bit amazed that you think that the whole Rhineland clause only affected the French. Everything that significantly shifted the power balance on the continent had to be a major concern for British diplomacy. Germany securing her industrial heartland was such a shift.

As true as that is, Britain had a problem at the time. The King of Britain, was firstly a Nazi, and secondly literally was overstepping his constitutional remit in order to block Prime Minister Baldwin from doing or saying anything. Britain was unable to act on that basis.

This doesn;t however excuse France, who did not have an issue at the time.

[UnitedIreland]

I don't think they could have sent any help. Hitler played both Britain and France. He moved into the Rhineland on a Saturday and France being very religious meant they wouldn't take any action until Monday. Also, when he flew planes over, he secretly took them back to Germany, painted a different number on them and sent them back, making the French believe that there was twice as many troops in the Rhineland than there actually was. Also, the Rhineland has always been Germanys and Britian wouldn't send over troops to counter Hitler's retaking of land that actually belongs to Germany. Also, both governments feared Communism more than Nazism and they believed that a stronger Germany could be used as a barrier from Russia. I know they could have stopped Hitler over the Rhineland but I feel a more important time to stop him would have been his takeover of the Sudetenland in Czechoslovakia.

[Comrade the Colonel]

No Brit here is ''quick to forget their own responsibilities''. You'll remember Britain was almost destroyed in the later war. But let's turn the tables shall we.... America was also a contributor or signatory of Versailles, where were they all this time? Why did the USA not condemn Germany and send a military force.... since ''Just because the Rhineland isnt bordered with Britain America doesnt mean that they couldnt have sent some help. I dont care how long it would have taken, they should have done it.''.... to quote you.



As true as that is, Britain had a problem at the time. The King of Britain, was firstly a Nazi, and secondly literally was overstepping his constitutional remit in order to block Prime Minister Baldwin from doing or saying anything. Britain was unable to act on that basis.

This doesn;t however excuse France, who did not have an issue at the time.

please, the UK is in Europe, America is not.

[Каие]

It's still across water and far away enough to be unable to send boots to West Germany at short notice. Hell in the start of the Second World War it took months to send the BEF just over to Normandy and Dunkirk.