The always returning discussion: Could Nazi-Germany have won WW2?

[Mayer]

You do know that a coup d'etat against Hitler at the height of his popular support (after the fall of france) would lead to a uproar in the public and a revolt against the usurpers?

I have a better idea: a assassin is ordered to kill Hitler, after his death the nation is in a state of shock and several days of national mourning are declared. The investigation comes to the conclusion that he worked on the orders of Britain (which he didn't *hint*). Hitler is declared a nation's hero who died for germany, gets buried with all honors and numerous monuments are planned to commemorate him, the point is that military officials assume government affairs and announce that they do so until the war is over and responsibilities are transfered to the Reichstag(parliament) who decide a chancellor and president (both offices were merged by Hitler) after new elections. Now that the proponents of eastward expansion are disempowered by generals who are afraid of a war in Russia, a good neighborhood policy with the USSR is adopted and the plans for Operation Barbarossa are shelved. This means that there will neither be a invasion of the Soviet Union nor a declaration of war against the USA, and no Holocaust either. All ressources are comitted to the war against Britain for the fastest possible end with german victory conditions. If Stalin nonetheless decides to spread the revolution with force and starts an invasion, germany retains the moral high ground and is evidently not the aggressor in the world.

The only problem in this scenario is Himmler and his SS who will undoubtedly try to sabotage or even coup. So, they need to be smeared and sentenced for building a state inside the state.

[invicta]

Preamble: I'm not German, I'm not a nazi-fan. I just look at things rationally.
The worst thing about WWII is the propaganda of the winners: they pictured Hitler like crazy man obsessed to destroy the Jews and conquering the world.
As much as absurd as it is , people actually believe it! A crazy man could never surge to power and lead an advanced nation of 60-70 millions of well educated individuals.
The fact is that Germany had in the thirties the same reason it had 20 years earlier to join the WWI.
UK and France had huge empires controlling huge shares of the resources and markets in the world (well UK had much larger share than France, but still).
Germany had the same ambitions as those 2 nations, but didn't have an empire like those (very small before wwi, and nothing after it).
The way economy was structured back then, they needed an empire to grow.
I'm not saying they were right or wrong: I'm just saying there are not saint or sinner. France and UK appeared as peaceful nations just because they got most of the share of the cake, and thus
they had the most interest in keeping the status quo. Germany had opposite interest.
USA, were the one with most interest in having a Europe at war: it would break their competitors and they would profit from it. That's why apparently they initially seemed to sympathize with the nazi regime.

All in all Germany could have never won the war: USA would have never backed them . They kept neutrality just to let destruction spread in Europe, and have everyone else exhaust each other paving this way the way to victory for them.
As also it was just a matter of time before USSR attacked Germany: they also were tricking (or at least trying to ) Hitler. They were trying to play the same game as the US, letting Hitler attacking France and UK and getting into war on a later stage (when they would have been ready) to appear like the saviors of Europe (and given the hostility of France and Uk towards them, that's was the only smart path for them left). Too bad for the Russian that they being neighboring with Germany they couldn't bring their strategy as they intended.

Germany screwed up the diplomacy side: the only way they could have succeeded was for them to have USSR to attack Poland first. That way UK and France woudl have attacked USSR rather than Germany,and Germany could have taken land from USSR and part of the resources they needed. By attacking Poland first they did what USSR wanted the most, and put themselves into a deadly trap.
Germany was strong, but still too small to take everyone else at once, and with not enough resources. They would have never had the resources to take down the USA or conquer the whole USSR.
They should have learnt from UK (the politics they followed starting form the 18th century) like USA did: isolate yourself, and bring the war into your competitors countries. Of course, it wouldn't have been as much easy for Germany as it was for UK and USA, but it was the only way to succeed.

Alliances of countries like Italy were not really important. 3 countries really mattered in Europe in war-global scale war. UK,France and USSR.
And the reason is that in a war Germany wouldn't have been able to put them down.
France because even conquering France, the French could organize resistance from the colonies which Germans didn't have access to.
Uk, along with the colonies had even an easier defensive position.
USSR: it was too big, and with harsh climate (and less infrastructures) to bring it all down.
Only if they let USSR start a war against UK-France (by letting Poland being attacked from Stalin first) they could have found a real opportunity to win.

[Mayer]

Alliances of countries like Italy were not really important.

lol with friends like Mussolini you don't need enemies. How many times has he pushed for a ill-prepared offensive against neighboring countries and needed germany's support? 3 times?

I don't agree that F.D.R's and Stalin's foreign policies were similar. Stalin waited for the capitalist countries to weaken themselves in a war, i agree with that but Roosevelt's ambition to intervene was only driven by his distate of the axis countries and the restraint of the USA was result of the strong isolationist mood.

[Wulfburk]

As much as absurd as it is , people actually believe it! A crazy man could never surge to power and lead an advanced nation of 60-70 millions of well educated individuals.
The fact is that Germany had in the thirties the same reason it had 20 years earlier to join the WWI.
UK and France had huge empires controlling huge shares of the resources and markets in the world (well UK had much larger share than France, but still).
Germany had the same ambitions as those 2 nations, but didn't have an empire like those (very small before wwi, and nothing after it).
The way economy was structured back then, they needed an empire to grow.
I'm not saying they were right or wrong: I'm just saying there are not saint or sinner. France and UK appeared as peaceful nations just because they got most of the share of the cake, and thus
they had the most interest in keeping the status quo. Germany had opposite interest.
USA, were the one with most interest in having a Europe at war: it would break their competitors and they would profit from it. That's why apparently they initially seemed to sympathize with the nazi regime.

I dont think Roosevelt and the US government ever sympathized with the nazi regime, you are probably thinking of guys like Ford...
And most dont think Hitler as crazy. Doing that would actually take away the blame of his actions and of his intentions since as a crazy, he woudnt understand what he was doing.

I dont think anyone can argue against the fact that WW2 start is solely on Germany's action. WW1 is a different thing, but in the 2nd world war it all falls down to the german government. There was no reason to go to war, they werent being bullied by anyone, their former enemies were as pacifists as they could with Neville Chamberlain and so on, Germany just went to war for the sake of it. I mean, even the Versailles treaty which is something most people atribbute to being one of the reasons of the 2nd Wrold war was broken on and on and the rest of the world INCLUDING france and the UK just turned a blind eye.

[Diocle]

IMO if you want to win WWII with Germany you MUST delete the character name A.H., not for the post-war propaganda and not even for his idiotic and criminal views (this thread is about hypothesis of alternate history, not about morality or politics), nor because he was a military idiot, in fact he wasn't an idiot, he probably was also a good and brave soldier during WWI, but ..... he was a corporal!

A.H. didn't understand the military strategy and he hated the Junkers, that is, the class of the Prussian Officers he accused (being wrong, but as I said the man was a corporal ...) being the traitors and the incompetent managers of what he saw more as a betrayal than a defeat.
He built the SS to control the Army and the Officers, he always was uncomfortable in his relations with the army and the officers, maybe with the annoying 'von' before the name (inferiority complex? Why not for a man forced to find hospitality in the hospice for indigent people of Wien before the war ...), his plans were always under critical scrutiny by the Officers' Class, he probably believed they didn't understand his political leadership of the war, it's the old dialectic about the leadership in war: Generals or Politicians? In this case the situation was worsened by the paranoid situation, common to all dictators, the constant fear of betrayal and plots against him, and by the personal hate toward a class he perceived, at least, as 'cold' in its stance regarding the Party.

This issue became evident during the Russian Campaign and led to the attempt of July, 20, 1944, to assassinate the Führer, inside his Wolf's Lair field headquarters near Rastenburg, sadly (IMO, 'sadly' mainly for the German people) too late and failed!

I think that the divisions between the Army and the Chancellor were one of the main reason of many avoidable defeats and wrong choices on the field.
Moreover, if you add to this, that H. was an absolute obstacle to any serious diplomatic effort directed toward Britain and the Anglo-Saxon world (that is the winners of WWII) you'll understand why I think that if you want to win the war with Germany you need to erase the figure of A.H.
What I mean is that you cannot wage a war against two super-powers like URSS and USA at the same time! You need some diplomatic trick to close one of the two fronts, you need more diplomacy and less ideology, that is, you need good politics to build a good military strategy so, A.H. becomes a big problem ....

.... the fact that he was also a filthy bastard, a f..... criminal and living insult to all the best traditions and values of the German people, in this case, is an absolutely secondary aspect of the problem.

[Mayer]

I dont think Roosevelt and the US government ever sympathized with the nazi regime

but he did with Stalin

you are probably thinking of guys like Ford...

Ah the inventor of the assembly line produced car and author of the International Jew
Hitler overtrumped him with the VW Type 1 (Beetle) and the Holocaust. Like the master, so the student.

I dont think anyone can argue against the fact that WW2 start is solely on Germany's action. WW1 is a different thing, but in the 2nd world war it all falls down to the german government. There was no reason to go to war, they werent being bullied by anyone, their former enemies were as pacifists as they could with Neville Chamberlain and so on, Germany just went to war for the sake of it. I mean, even the Versailles treaty which is something most people atribbute to being one of the reasons of the 2nd Wrold war was broken on and on and the rest of the world INCLUDING france and the UK just turned a blind eye.

i get it, germany is the root of all evil..
Honestly, I can't hear it anymore, the whole time we germans have to hear how we are and how we should feel ashamed. Do you know how that sounds like?
Stupid historical chauvinism by the victors which tries to blame us for everything and make them look like saints.
The first thing which comes to my mind when hearing the phrase 'WW2 start is solely on Germany's action' is when does WW2 start in your opinion?
On the day german troops passed the polish border (even though the soviets did the same thing 2 weeks later)?
I think of events like Ethiopia 1935, Marco Polo bridge 1937, Chaco 1932 or Spain 1936 which hardly make this a peace-time
France turned a blind eye? Are you joking? They occupied the Ruhr because we couldn't pay the reperations, even going so far to attempt to revive Napoleon's Confederation of the Rhine now under the name of Rhenish Republic for which they recruited collaborators like Adenauer.

A.H. didn't understand the military strategy and he hated the Junkers, that is, the class of the Prussian Officers he accused (being wrong, but as I said the man was a corporal ...) being the traitors and the incompetent managers of what he saw more as a betrayal than a defeat.

It might have something to do with Adolf's teenage love interest Stefanie being jewish and having liaisons with military officers
Leading him to hate two things in his life: jews and generals

Moreover, if you add to this, that H. was an absolute obstacle to any serious diplomatic effort directed toward Britain and the Anglo-Saxon world (that is the winners of WWII) you'll understand why I think that if you want to win the war with Germany you need to erase the figure of A.H.

Nah, serious diplomatic talks with Anglo-Saxons and the French were unrealistic to begin with. Germany should have continued cooperation with the USSR, both were outcasts and wanted to regain strength and it was the only way to bypass the Versailles treaty in order to rebuild the german armed forces (which wouldn't exist without the Soviet Union).

What I mean is that you cannot wage a war against two super-powers like URSS and USA at the same time!

Indeed that was incredible stupid but many people at that time thought Russia was a backward place which could easily be conquered like in WW1

[Sphere]

A.H. didn't understand the military strategy and he hated the Junkers, that is, the class of the Prussian Officers he accused (being wrong, but as I said the man was a corporal ...) being the traitors and the incompetent managers of what he saw more as a betrayal than a defeat.
He built the SS to control the Army and the Officers, he always was uncomfortable in his relations with the army and the officers, maybe with the annoying 'von' before the name (inferiority complex? Why not for a man forced to find hospitality in the hospice for indigent people of Wien before the war ...), his plans were always under critical scrutiny by the Officers' Class, he probably believed they didn't understand his political leadership of the war, it's the old dialectic about the leadership in war: Generals or Politicians? In this case the situation was worsened by the paranoid situation, common to all dictators, the constant fear of betrayal and plots against him, and by the personal hate toward a class he perceived, at least, as 'cold' in its stance regarding the Party.

I'd say Hitlers fear of the Prussian Officer class was well founded. They did try and kill him and take over the state in a coup d'etat. What you call paranoia I'd call prudence.

[Diocle]

Germany should have continued cooperation with the USSR

Also my first thought has been the cooperation with URSS, but then I saw in my mind the smiling face of Stalin ... and when this happens abitually it begins a dangerous phase, in which slowly the idea that Geramny has been forced to do what they did, grows and grows and grows ... till the moment I say: No! f.... the Nazis! and the nightmare ends!

What I mean is: Do you think that to win the war Stalin could be considered a good alley?

I respectfully remind you we are not talking of Putin, we are talking of continuing the war against the Brits and the USA (because actually I hope that here nobody is so naive to imagine that the most powerful Anglo Saxon country of the world, the USA I mean, would have left London to perish ...) with, right on your 'back', Stalin & the Red Army waiting for you, waiting patiently and always smiling ....then, at the right moment, when you send the last division to conquer Manchester ... they move, and the Reich (and with it 2/3 of Europe) is kaput, probably in less than three months, and this time, they would not stop the work halfway, no this time the Americans are not there to save at least half the Continent ....

[Wulfburk]

i get it, germany is the root of all evil..
Honestly, I can't hear it anymore, the whole time we germans have to hear how we are and how we should feel ashamed. Do you know how that sounds like?
Stupid historical chauvinism by the victors which tries to blame us for everything and make them look like saints.
The first thing which comes to my mind when hearing the phrase 'WW2 start is solely on Germany's action' is when does WW2 start in your opinion?
On the day german troops passed the polish border (even though the soviets did the same thing 2 weeks later)?
I think of events like Ethiopia 1935, Marco Polo bridge 1937, Chaco 1932 or Spain 1936 which hardly make this a peace-time
France turned a blind eye? Are you joking? They occupied the Ruhr because we couldn't pay the reperations, even going so far to attempt to revive Napoleon's Confederation of the Rhine now under the name of Rhenish Republic for which they recruited collaborators like Adenauer.

First, did i ever say germany was the root of all evil? World war 2 for me starts in the invasion of poland, as that is when two great powers declared war on each other. Why did that happen? Its simple as it can be. Chamberlain and its appeasement policy was done with. UK simply let Germany take over Austria and czech because it DIDNT want to go to another war. Letting those two countries be annexed was wrong, but you think the "right" thing was to let Germany annex Poland as well?

Look, i have nothing against germany, i love Prussia's history, Frederick the great is my favorite strategist, BUT you cannot counter the fact that the war simply started because of the guarantee the UK had of the polish border. We all know the bad things the UK did in its history, BUT tell me, is there a thing more "noble" than guaranteeing the independence of a smaller country against an injust invasion (as if some invasions were 'just'), EVEN if you do it to suit your own interest?

So yes, WW2 in my opinion is solely on the German GOVERNMENT at the time, not its people.


If the UK wanted war, it wouldnt have let Germany annex austria and czechoslovaquia. AND if Germany did NOT want war, it woudnt have annexed both of these countries, and then try to annex another one. How the hell can you deny that? Forget about your nationality for a little bit and be reasonable...

[Lord Oda Nobunaga]

That is actually one of the things I don't get when the topic of Hitler is brought up. Just what strategy did he not understand?
So contrary to say the historian Andrew Roberts that Hitler did not listen to strategic geniuses like Rommel, Guderian, Manstein etc it seems to me that they are the ones that didn't understand how the war worked. When in reality Hitler was in command of the war since day 1. I mean does anyone actually mean to tell me that Heinz Guderian was any good at strategy at all? Or that Rommel was good at strategy? The ever over powered rofl stomp slapping reputation of Manstein isn't really well deserved either. Lost Victories anyone?

I would even go so far as to say that Hitler's strategic mistakes were minor and that it was the issue of production more than any strategic mistake on Hitler or the Germany's part that cost them the war. Not that we could reasonably expect Germany to even put up a fight against the USSR, the USA or the British Empire combined when it comes to production. Hell most of the books on the subject even go so far as to make false claims about how Hitler made oh so many mistakes. I can even perfectly outline these claims and why they are nothing more than that. Most of the time Hitler trumped over all of his generals in strategic decision making. Very few of these great WW2 German strategists can even hold their water.

[Mayer]

What I mean is: Do you think that to win the war Stalin could be considered a good alley?

No, but there aren't any better.

Look, i have nothing against germany, i love Prussia's history, Frederick the great is my favorite strategist, BUT you cannot counter the fact that the war simply started because of the guarantee the UK had of the polish border. We all know the bad things the UK did in its history, BUT tell me, is there a thing more "noble" than guaranteeing the independence of a smaller country against an injust invasion (as if some invasions were 'just'), EVEN if you do it to suit your own interest?

Tell me, if the UK declaration of war against Germany was only about the guarantee of polish independence, why didn't they declare war against the Soviet Union after the partition? Oh i forgot, the secret protocol of the Polish-British Common Defence Pact specified the European Power which aggression was met with retaliation to be Germany, that's right it wasn't a guarantee of independence but a german-containment pact! Since we all know that after the war, Poland came under control of Stalin who redrawed its borders and inserted a puppet regime while Britain dropped all demands about Poland, it's hilarious to say that Britain fought for polish independence.

If the UK wanted war, it wouldnt have let Germany annex austria and czechoslovaquia. AND if Germany did NOT want war, it woudnt have annexed both of these countries, and then try to annex another one. How the hell can you deny that? Forget about your nationality for a little bit and be reasonable...

The majority of austrians wanted to be part of germany, they already wanted that after the war when the Habsburg kingdom fell apart but the allies forbid them to do so. Even political opponents were in favor of joining germany.

So yes, WW2 in my opinion is solely on the German GOVERNMENT at the time, not its people.

In my opinion WW2 was the result of expansionist&interventionist interests of several countries around the globe and the political rifts caused by WW1. It was inevitable, with Germany or without.

That is actually one of the things I don't get when the topic of Hitler is brought up. Just what strategy did he not understand?

that invading Russia is not like playing a sandbox game

[Turtler]

Tell me, if the UK declaration of war against Germany was only about the guarantee of polish independence, why didn't they declare war against the Soviet Union after the partition? Oh i forgot, the secret protocol of the Polish-British Common Defence Pact specified the European Power which aggression was met with retaliation to be Germany, that's right it wasn't a guarantee of independence but a german-containment pact! Since we all know that after the war, Poland came under control of Stalin who redrawed its borders and inserted a puppet regime while Britain dropped all demands about Poland, it's hilarious to say that Britain fought for polish independence.

Not really. At the time the pact as a German Containment plan and it as a guarantee of Polish Independence went hand in hand. As even Pilsudski etc. al. had known, and even his mealy mouthed heirs had been made to realize: Polish independence was contingent on keeping both Germany and the Soviet Union out, and victory in a war to do that relied on fighting and defeating one of the two. Trying to fight both at once would have been highly risky at best. Rather than concluding that Britain and France only declared war on Germany because it was listed in the pact, perhaps you should be asking by Germany alone rather than the Soviet Union or both was the one listed.

One of the things that kept there from being a Western Allied-Soviet war declaration (and there were more than a few times when it looked likely) was that after Poland, Stalin kept his head down and avoided the direct conflict Hitler thrived on, and the Western Allies were sufficiently realistic/pragmatic/cynical to avoid war with both totalitarian giants at the same time unless they had to. And even then,they came very close to declaring war on the Soviets, not just with plans to bomb Baku to cut off Hitler's oil but also to interject themselves into the Winter War to save Finland (yes, this was largely to sabotage German ore imports by occupying Northern Finland, but at some point they had to put their money where their mouths were and that would've meant a Western Allied expedition facing the Soviets in combat).

The majority of austrians wanted to be part of germany, they already wanted that after the war when the Habsburg kingdom fell apart but the allies forbid them to do so. Even political opponents were in favor of joining germany.

This doesn't wash easily. 1938 was not 1919. You are correct to note that union with Germany was popular in Austria, but assuming that most people wanted to be part of Germany- especially at the time it mattered in 1938- is too much by half. If that was *really* the case, then why in God's Name did Hitler feel his plans of that were so endangered by the referendum planned by the Austrian Dictatorship on Austrian independence? Why did the mere existence or a planned referendum push him to launch an even more intense coup in Vienna *and* invade with his military?

That is not the action of someone who feels confident of victory.

In my opinion WW2 was the result of expansionist&interventionist interests of several countries around the globe and the political rifts caused by WW1. It was inevitable, with Germany or without.

Broadly speaking I agree. However, not all of those countries were the same. For the same reason I wouldn't be nearly as terrified of a French invasion of Belgium as I would be Sanitation Poland acting up, and why I wouldn't be half as terrified of Sanitation Poland as I would be of the Soviet Union.

[Wulfburk]

The majority of austrians wanted to be part of germany, they already wanted that after the war when the Habsburg kingdom fell apart but the allies forbid them to do so. Even political opponents were in favor of joining germany.

Well, yes, but the same cannot be said of Czechoslovaquia and Poland. Nor Belgium, Netherlands, Denmark, Norway, Luxembourg... all neutral countries with barely any military that posed absolutely NO threat to germany that they invaded just for the sake of it.

Tell me, if the UK declaration of war against Germany was only about the guarantee of polish independence, why didn't they declare war against the Soviet Union after the partition? Oh i forgot, the secret protocol of the Polish-British Common Defence Pact specified the European Power which aggression was met with retaliation to be Germany, that's right it wasn't a guarantee of independence but a german-containment pact! .

You are right, Britain did NOT fight just for polish independence, britain fought BECAUSE they guaranteed the polish independence when the UK was sure guaranteeing it would stop Germany from trying anything smart, they were wrong obviously. ANd yes, it was part of a containment policy to fight the substantial german expansionism they portrayed after the UK thought it was going to ease off after Austria and czechoslovaquia. Even so, Germany could just have... not... you know..... attacked Poland. That was the main "wrong".

In my opinion WW2 was the result of expansionist&interventionist interests of several countries around the globe and the political rifts caused by WW1. It was inevitable, with Germany or without.

And yes, cut the "solely" on my part as that is a little too much. But i still think the centre of those rifts lies in Germany, and Germany went forth increasing them.

Since we all know that after the war, Poland came under control of Stalin who redrawed its borders and inserted a puppet regime while Britain dropped all demands about Poland

Britain did try, but Stalin said no, so under the post-war circunstances, did you really expect Britain to fight against the USSR? I mean, the main reason they didnt do it was simply because the people woudnt take another war AND -specifically- since Britan would clearly be DEFEATED. It was a different matter than guaranteeing the independence of poland in 1939.

[Lord Oda Nobunaga]

You can't really do much without invading Russia cause you sort of need their stuff to get at Britain.
In my opinion Mussolini should have just stopped acting like an idiot, he should have followed Hitler's advice. In fact Hitler's prediction of the Italian's campaign against Greece was in every way spot on. Everything he said would happen ended up happening.

[invicta]

I dont think anyone can argue against the fact that WW2 start is solely on Germany's action. WW1 is a different thing, but in the 2nd world war it all falls down to the german government. There was no reason to go to war, they werent being bullied by anyone, their former enemies were as pacifists as they could with Neville Chamberlain and so on, Germany just went to war for the sake of it. I mean, even the Versailles treaty which is something most people atribbute to being one of the reasons of the 2nd Wrold war was broken on and on and the rest of the world INCLUDING france and the UK just turned a blind eye.

This is totally wrong.
Germany had all the reasons to go to war. The way economy worked back then it was the only path for them.
Back then there wasn't free market/economy like today (and even today isn't completely open or free). Economy was pretty much closed, and since most of the world was "colonized" , countries who
had no colonies depended on the countries who had colonies for resources and market where they could sell their products.
Germany had not a vast market or access to vast markets like UK, France USA or even USSR.
The great depression made this situation even worse, and led most of the countries to increase duties on imports:
http://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/...tariff-act.asp
As long as they were dependent on those countries , Germany could have never become a real power, and in a way
they could have never been a free country.
Imagine you need an essential commodity like oil and you don't have it in your country. You'll need someone to give it to you.
That one, might be willing to sell, but being you depending on it, it could ask you "premium" price that put your country at disadvantage.
It could ask you side-deals along with the price is selling you. And it could threaten anytime to stop to supply you the commodity if you don't act in a certain way.
This is politics. And that's why countries like Germany and Italy pushed so much their attempt of becoming self-sufficient (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Year_Plan).
You can't understand history if you ignore the economic climate.
Germany had every rights from their pow to start the war, and UK and France were stupid and blind enough and as much responsible as the Germans for the war.
They should have let a way out (after the first wwi) for Germany to developing. They thought they make of Germany a second division country, but Germany was too strong and too advanced.

People often falls under the propaganda of the winner ignoring that every story has 2 sides of it.
Every war has an economic motive behind it. Germany wanted the same wealth and same status that UK and France had.

And actually no: it's more accepted than not among the historians that the roots of the wwii are to be found in the peace treaty of Versailles.

[Wulfburk]

This is totally wrong.
Germany had all the reasons to go to war. The way economy worked back then it was the only path for them.
Back then there wasn't free market/economy like today (and even today isn't completely open or free). Economy was pretty much closed, and since most of the world was "colonized" , countries who
had no colonies depended on the countries who had colonies for resources and market where they could sell their products.
Germany had not a vast market or access to vast markets like UK, France USA or even USSR.
The great depression made this situation even worse, and led most of the countries to increase duties on imports:
http://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/...tariff-act.asp

Its not the "way economy worked back then". The german doctrine needed a war economy so yes, behind the war was the economic motive, but only because Germany picked that option. I think post world war 2 surely shows how you can have a strong economy with basically without military investments and without an expansionit policy.

As long as they were dependent on those countries , Germany could have never become a real power, and in a way
they could have never been a free country.

Well there you go, with that, which you wrote, basically brings most of the burden to Germany, which was exactly my point. If Germany didnt go expansionist after 1933, probably nothing would have happened, and it would continue as a free country, Britain would not side with France if they were the aggressor, and the USSR would only really join if they were attacked, like it happened.

I find it quite ironic that people can make the aggressor look like he's fighting for his "freedom"... If anything, Germany should have stopped and laid low after reoccupying the rhineland.

I think this doctrine that says that Germany somehow deserved to become a real power through war is just BS and a weak attempt to justify the unjustifiable invasions of neutral countries. THAT is my main point, Germany was the one that started invading neutral countries that eventually led to war, so i'll say again, that makes most of the burden of the war to Germany, not to Britain, nor France, who even had an appeasement policy since they did NOT want war (unlike in WW1). I dont think anyone can counter that with facts.

Imagine you need an essential commodity like oil and you don't have it in your country. You'll need someone to give it to you.
That one, might be willing to sell, but being you depending on it, it could ask you "premium" price that put your country at disadvantage.
It could ask you side-deals along with the price is selling you. And it could threaten anytime to stop to supply you the commodity if you don't act in a certain way.

And that doesnt in anyway justifies going to war.

[don_Durandal]

<...> nor France, who even had an appeasement policy since they did NOT want war (unlike in WW1). <...>

France did not want war in WW1 either. None of the diplomatic actions of France in the lead up to WW1 are consistent with a country attempting escalation. Quite on the contrary, they were in the continuity of French policies towards a rapprochement with the German Empire ever since Poincaré became president in 1913. They only refused to compromise on their existing alliances (and there's no reason why they wouldn't).

And no, don't even bother do bring up the topic of Alsace-Lorraine. The idea that France went to war in 1914 for Alsace-Lorraine is a popular one with little academic support and no factual basis. An in-depth study of French politics in the decade leading up to the war shows that this topic had become irrelevant as far as the majority of the people and political class went. Instead, the French had long "drowned their sorrow" by turning towards aggressive colonial expansion in the four decades that separated the Franco-Prussian war and WW1.

[Mayer]

Llyod George gives a different portrayal of Poincaré:

"The fact that he was a Lorrainer, born and brought up in sight of the German eagle waving over the ravished provinces of France, bred in him an implacable enmity for Germany and all Germans. Anti-clericalism was with him a conviction; anti-Germanism was a passion. That gave him a special hold on France that had been ravaged by the German legions in the Great War. It was a disaster to France and to Europe. Where a statesman was needed who realised that if it is to be wisely exploited victory must be utilised with clemency and restraint, Poincaré made it impossible for any French Prime Minister to exert these qualities. He would not tolerate any compromise, concession or conciliation. He was bent on keeping Germany down. He was more responsible than any other man for the refusal of France to implement the disarmament provisions of the Treaty of Versailles. He stimulated and subsidised the armaments of Poland and Czecho-Slovakia which created such a ferment of uneasiness in disarmed Germany. He encouraged insurrection in the Rhineland against the authority of the Reich. He intrigued with the anti-German elements in Britain to thwart every effort in the direction of restoring goodwill in Europe and he completely baffled Briand's endeavour in that direction. He is the true creator of modern Germany with its great and growing armaments, and should this end in another conflict the catastrophe will have been engineered by Poincaré. His dead hand lies heavy on Europe to-day."

"All the Premiers who followed after Clemenceau feared Poincaré. Millerand was his creature. Briand, who was all for the League and a policy of appeasement, was thwarted at every turn by the intrigues of Poincaré. Under his influence, which continued for years after his death, the League became not an instrument of peace and goodwill amongst all men, including Germans; it was converted into an organisation for establishing on a permanent footing the military and thereby the diplomatic supremacy of France. That policy completely discredited the League as a body whose decisions on disputes between nations might be trusted to be as impartial as those of any ordinary tribunal in any civilised country. The obligations entered into by the Allies as to disarmament were not fulfilled. British Ministers put up no fight against the betrayal of the League and the pledges as to disarmament. Hence the Nazi Revolution"

And no, don't even bother do bring up the topic of Alsace-Lorraine. The idea that France went to war in 1914 for Alsace-Lorraine is a popular one with little academic support and no factual basis.

Plan XVII

Germany asked France on July 31 if they are going to stay neutral in this conflict.
Poincaré instead supported Russia's demands and declared the french mobilisation which preceded Germany's declaration of war.

An in-depth study of French politics in the decade leading up to the war shows that this topic had become irrelevant as far as the majority of the people and political class went. Instead, the French had long "drowned their sorrow" by turning towards aggressive colonial expansion in the four decades that separated the Franco-Prussian war and WW1.

Bismarck tried to improve the relations with France by supporting its colonial expansion but to no avail.
The occupation of France, the devastation of Paris by artillery, the proclamation of the German Empire in Versailles and above all the annexation of Alsace-Lorraine have poisened the France-German relations for decades.

Motivations of territorial aggression and counter aggression are as old as tribal societies, but the instance of revanchism that gave these groundswells of opinion their modern name lies in the strong desire during the French Third Republic to regain Alsace-Lorraine – which France had held since the time of King Louis XIV in the 17th century and which were taken away in the Treaty of Frankfurt, following Emperor Napoleon III's crushing defeat in the Franco-Prussian War of 1870–71.

Georges Clemenceau, of the Radical Republicans, opposed participation in the scramble for Africa and other adventures that would divert the Republic from objectives related to the "blue line of the Vosges" in Alsace-Lorraine. After the governments of Jules Ferry had pursued a number of colonies in the early 1880s, Clemenceau lent his support to Georges Ernest Boulanger, a popular figure, nicknamed Général Revanche, who it was felt might overthrow the Republic in 1889. This ultra-nationalist tradition influenced French politics up to 1921 and was one of the major reasons France went to great pains to woo Russia, resulting in the Franco-Russian Alliance of 1894 and, after more accords, the Triple Entente of the three great Allied powers of World War I: France, Great Britain, and Russia.

French revanchism was one of the forces behind the Treaty of Versailles, which regained Alsace-Lorraine for France, that started with the Assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria with the World War I with Germany and extracted reparations from the defeated powers. The conference was not only opened on the anniversary of the proclamation of the Second Reich, the treaty also had to be signed by the new German government in the same room, the Hall of Mirrors.

You can't really do much without invading Russia cause you sort of need their stuff to get at Britain.

I don't think this was necessary. Britain had a magnificent but vulnerable navy and good air defense but the armed forces were in a pitiful state after they had to leave behind most equipment in France. They would have to rely on militas, improvised mines and improvised armor in case of an invasion of their island.

[Lord Oda Nobunaga]

There actually was never a planned German invasion of Britain. Contrary to what Manstein claims in his 1955 book, Operation Sea Lion was very much hypothetical. It's existence might as well have been none and it was a huge risk which understandably Hitler wasn't prepared to make. Either way the southern English coast was a bloody fortress, especially the Eastern part, I'd like to see anyone even try to land on Britain without encountering massive disaster.

French war plans all included a concentration of French forces on the Eastern border as well as thrusts into Alsace, I think that was actually what France did first but were unable to overcome German defenses. French military doctrine seemed to depend on the elan since Napoleonic times and judging by what I gathered from papa Joffre. I think Germany was more worried about a war on two fronts rather than an obsession to hold Alsace, which Wilhelm seemed to be willing to negotiate a mutual settlement on the issue. The real German worry was Russia's mobilization, the Schlieffen plan was just is all, and outdated to boot.

[don_Durandal]

Llyod George gives a different portrayal of Poincaré:

Lloyd George's opinion is rather irrelevant compared to Poincaré's actual actions. Even if Poincaré was rabidly anti-German (and actually he kept a balanced middle ground between Georges Clemenceau's anti-German and Joseph Cailleaux' pro-German stance) what really matters is his actions, and we are speaking here of the first French president of the republic to dine at the German embassy.
For that I'll refer to Poincaré's latest biography by John Keiger (and the first to actually use Poincaré's own private papers as source), in which he shows that Poincaré did pursue a policy of appeasement with the Germans.

Plan XVII

A wonderful red-herring, and a rather huge leap of faith. How is Plan XVII a proof that France wanted war with Germany over Alsace-Lorraine?
Rather, tell me what other alternative there would be for France in the case of a war with Germany, considering that going through Belgium was diplomatically inadmissible, whereas maintain a passive strategy was in direct contradiction with French military doctrine of the time (no matter how flawed these were).

Of all of France's neighbour at the time, the German Empire was the only one that could pose a realistic military threat (and note that the French Army was prepared for a war with Italy all the time until that country's entry in the war, and maintained troops on that frontier even after that). Why would the French high command not prepare for a conflict with their main threat? That's something that all military staffs do even in peacetime.

In short, bringing up Plan XVII makes absolutely no sense in this context.

Germany asked France on July 31 if they are going to stay neutral in this conflict.
Poincaré instead supported Russia's demands and declared the french mobilisation which preceded Germany's declaration of war.

France was allied with Russia, and their support was fully expected (*). Great Britain and Russia did the same for France during the Agadir Crisis, even though technically it gave them no advantage other than diplomatic brownies. That's just how basic diplomacy works.
And more importantly: the Agadir Crisis did not result in war; quite on the contrary, it gave France the diplomatic weight to start appeasement attempts with Germany. That's the kind of development that the Entente governments were expecting during the July Crisis.

(*) note that the Russian mobilisation on 30 July was done against French advise. René Viviani, the French prime minister, had sent a telegraph to Maurice Paléologue, the French ambassador in Moscow, asking him to tell the Russians to avoid anything that could provoke Germany. However the Czar had already agreed to general mobilisation an hour before that and Sazonov (the Russian foreign minister) had immediatly transmitted that to Nikolai Yanushkevich (the chief of the general staff) to prevent the Czar from changing his mind. As for the French, they weren't made aware of the Russian general mobilisation order until 6 hours afterwards.

And heck no, what you wrote was not the French answer to Germany's 31 July ultimatum in any way. Their answer was just an evasive "la France fera ce que lui dicterons ses intérêts", ("we will act in accordance with our interests"), which was just an attempt to stale as at that point the French governement hadn't taken a decision yet (note that even if the German ultimatum had been accepted, there would have been a second with a demand to cede the fortresses of Touls and Verdun as guarantees of French neutrality, which of course were utterly unacceptable; the Germans did not actually want French neutrality).

Also your concept of mobilisation and declaration of war is off. The French and German mobilisation orders were only one hour off (4pm and 5pm). Considering period communications, bureaucratic interference and cross-governement consultation (effectively the Kaiser could not declare mobilisation without consulting the army and foreign ministry) means the Germans were fully prepared to issue their mobilisation order. In effect either they were expecting it, or the declarations should be considered simultaneous.
(note also that the Russians told the French through their ambassador on 30 July that the German Army was secretly mobilising and almost war-prepared, which at that point wasn't true; if anything blame the Russians for that).

Also the idea that Germany declared war "because of French mobilisation" doesn't make sense when looking at how the events unfolded.
1) The Germans declared "Kriegsgefahrzustand" at midday on 31 July (and yes, that is war escalation; note: it's also before the German ultimatum to France).
2) on 31 July von Moltke phoned Conrad von Hötzendorf to tell him that Germany would mobilise probably on 2nd August and initiate hostilities with Russia and France after that
3) The German declaration of war on Russia was written and sent to their embassy in Moscow on 1st August at 1pm, to be officially delivered to Russia at 5pm; German intention to declare war preceded French mobilisation.
4) German units entered Luxembourg on 1st august at 7pm, just three hours after French mobilisation order. Such a quick manouevre in this period means that it was already planned before French mobilisation orders.
5) German reconnaissance units entered French territory on 2nd August, a Day before the German declaration of war on France. The first German and French casualties of the war happened then, on 2nd August at 10am, inside French territory, without a declaration of war being issued beforehand (see caporal Jules-André Peugeot and leutnant Albert Mayer).

For all intents though, it was Germany that declared war on France and not the other way round. That remains indisputable

Bismarck tried to improve the relations with France by supporting its colonial expansion but to no avail.
The occupation of France, the devastation of Paris by artillery, the proclamation of the German Empire in Versailles and above all the annexation of Alsace-Lorraine have poisened the France-German relations for decades.

How does that make France want to declare war on the German Empire? If that was the case they would have done so in 1887, the only time when they had military parity. Why wait fourty years, knowing that the other country was growing exponentially faster population and industry-wise? That narrative doesn't make sense.

Do NOT make the mistake of mixing up "dreams of revanche" with an actual policy of pursuing it; of the later, there is not a single trace to be found.

<wikipedia article about revanchism>

Pretty irrelevant if the French did not act on it.
Of course there were still French people who openly wanted a war with Germany over Alsace-Lorraine. But once again, "how much does it matter"? Well in this case: "not very much" since their weight and influence was marginal at best.

Let me illustrate that with factual examples:
- from the 1881 deputy elections on until the declaration of war, not a single party, not a single candidate in not a single election mentioned "Alsace-Lorraine" or "revanche" even once! It didn't figure in any political campaign, and no politician was ever elected on a "revanche" or "regain Alsace-Lorraine" platform. As far as French politics went, Alsace-Lorraine and "revanche" were non-issues! (and yes, these political programs were indeed all recorded and archived; see "barodet").
- Clemenceau, the supposed rabid anti-German who wanted the country destroyed after WW1, and figurehead of "revanche"; curiously it was him who prepared the Franco-German compromise during the Moroccan Crisis. And to quote the German ambassador in France in 1906 "Clemenceau's nomination, rather than aggravating the situation with Germany, improved it."; as you can see there's a huge difference between discourse and actual actions.

There is no factual support for the idea that France went to war in WW1 for revenge or Alsace-Lorraine.

However, ironically it was in alsace itself that pro-French sentiments were still burning strong at the time.