The Myth That Germany Triggered WW2

[CiviC]

But the French High Command was indeed afraid that Hitler was going to invade them yet in the Autumn of 1939, when they were not prepared to war yet.

... and they were so prepared in May 1940 ... 8 months of passivity and Franco-British were swept quicker then the Poles.

[athanaric]

HEIL HITLER!!!

Thank you for helping us in getting this thread closed.

... and they were so prepared in May 1940 ... 8 months of passivity and Franco-British were swept quicker then the Poles.

I heard that was partly the fault of the general retardation of the French high command. Apparently no one except a certain de Gaulle (to quote my history professor) thought it possible that German tank divisions would cross the Ardennes. Yeah right, the Germans were likely to attack the heavily fortified Maginot line

[Domen123]

Hitler did not understand the hard situation of the Wehrmacht after the Polish Campaign. He said in his memorandum of 9 October 1939:

"No country in the world has a better ammunition supply than the German Reich. [...] The attack on France will be possible in three weeks. If we can't bring that off, we will deserve to be beaten. [...] Time will, in general, work against us when we do not use it effectively. The economic means of the other side are stronger. The enemy can purchase and transport. Time doesn't work for us in the military sense either. [...] The coming months won't add to our own attack strength but will considerably strengthen the defensive force of our enemies. In 6 to 8 months they [defensive forces of Allies] will be better. That time may suffice to close the deficiencies."

I heard that was partly the fault of the general retardation of the French high command.

The French High Command thought that what happened to the Poles in 1939 cannot happen to France in 1940 and considered the Polish army inferior to their own. That's why they did not consider the suggestions of Polish high ranking officers who escaped to France in 1939 and who experienced the Blitzkrieg before.

Polish soldiers who escaped to France were put by the French into special training camps where they were undergoing basic military training again before they were allowed to serve in the French army because the French thought that Polish soldiers didn't know basic infantry tactics and that's why they lost. Laughing out loud.

[Hanny]

Wow, you're pretty harsh on this matter. He shouldn't be prosecuted at all. No one should because of this. It's nonsense and beyond all reason and pretty Nazi-like if I may.

Are you saying that in the US you can wear a swastika publicly but denying the Holocaust is a crime? I thought the US didn't have such laws.
And even then it should not be made punishable. Forbidding debate on certain topics doesn't create a healthy environment for discussing and debating in general. If one thing is forbidden then what's next?
People often call each other liars and ridicule each other.

Harsh?, given a fair trial and convicted or aquitted is not harsh, nor is it nazi like, and we both know the OP is exactly the kind of person who is a holacast denier, that this thread is not about it is simply because he knows he cant post it ( his views) and get it to stay on the board, what he can do is imply the same by the arguments he expresses in this thrtead that AH did not want or initate war to gain living space in the east, did not initate wars of agression and so on. His anti semtic remarks explain eaxctly where he comes from on an ideological stance.

In the US you cant dress up your anti semtism in an academic work to claim the holacasut was not a real event, the debate on it is closed , it happened, only fine tunning of the extent of the crime is unresolved and debatted and that more about the methodology of counting.

[Hanny]

@Hanny: Quoting a holo-promoting website (nizkor) on matters such as Hitler... talk about unbiased sources ^^
?

Unlike you who posted in the Nurmeburg thread from a convict6ed holacaust denier m Webber.

Thats from M webber, a contribotor to Holasut denial movement, writer for the institute of Historical review, an organistaion convicted in US law for hoalcast denial and an excellent example of why he and you are the same kind of person.

heres what you ought to read, not an article froma holacast denier who has 14 convition of holacuast denial, hate and dicrimination offences etc.
http://www.theatlantic.com/past/docs/unbound/flashbks/nurember/retrowy.htm

[Romanos IV]

Those countries weren't irrelevant. Scandinavia was for resources, and through Denmark was the easiest route and Denmark was neutral and leaning more towards the allies than Axis IIRC. Plus taking denmark will give you natural frontiers to defend and would allow a troop build up after an invasion of the British like that was the case in Belgium with British troops.

These have been mentioned a hundred times and it was not my intention to suggest something else for a reason. My concern, though, is why did they invade Denmark while they did have alternatives. Moreover, if the Germans invaded Belgium because of 'military necessity', then why did they also invade the Netherlans? They could have let them be just like WWI.

So Netherlands and Belgium and Luxembourg had to be taken as well for security reasons. Greece and Balkans and North Africa was Italy's fault. Italy and Germany both had their own agenda's but Germany didn't want to lose an ally and helped them out multiple times when they weren't capable of winning their own wars (no pun intended towards Italians).

They helped the Italians in the African Campaign with the Panzer Corps and in the Battle of Greece with their invasion, granted. But in the first campaign, they were already enemies with the British and they could do whatever they wished to fight them. Greece, on the contrary, had been invaded by the Italians, though after their withdrawal, Hitler could mediate a peace between them and the Greeks, before attempting to invade. Once again, he saw no alternatives to war.

As for the proposed highway connecting East Prussia to the rest of Germany and Danzig justifying an invasion being epic fail; well it kinda escalated with ethnic tensions between Germans and Poles within Poland and such. Add to that Poland's claim on Danzig while the population (being by far mostly German) preferred joining Germany but weren't allowed to by the Treaty of Versailles.

I was referring to the transportation route between the iron ore of Sweden and Germany, which could be guaranteed with an agreement with the Danish government.

Really read about it before making up your mind while you don't even know the historical context and pretty basic facts... It becomes much more clearer and interesting and simultaneously controversial concerning a couple of subjects.

Thanks for the advice, although I can't see me anywhere making up things from my mind. Nor can I see where I ignore those 'pretty basic' facts. Enlighten me when you have the time.

[Echuta]

The passivity of Franco-British on Western Front is beyond comprehension to me. It is the last drop of some idiotic decissions made by these two Great Powers after those of allowing Hitler to reoccupy Rheinland, to annex Austria and Sudetenland, to dismantle Czechosolvakia (here Poland has a little guilt too), to rearm Germany ...

Oh, the stupidity of some political leaders cost so much Europe ...

I think the Maginotline was the biggest strategical mistake in the war.

[vecordia]

(...)

Untill the prusso- austrian war of 1866, austria had a unitity with first
the german empire, and adjacently with the Bund. After the defat of
1918,and the annulment of the Habsburg reich, the victors decimate
habsburg to its german speaking core: Austria.
(...)

Wrong pic, not in the context. It's "May 3 Constitution" painted by Jan Matejko. It concerns XVIII Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth history.

EDIT:

(...)
Have to do with German history? It's a painting of Polish Constitution of 3rd May, which happened shortly before Prussia and Russia carved the Poland.

Ups, You've noticed that already.

The whole rest...crap.

[OTZ]

I think the Maginotline was the biggest strategical mistake in the war.

Depends on your perspective. Hindsight is 20/20.

[Gerald The Herald]

Surely it cannot be doubted that Hitler's aggresive foreign policy, coupled with his long-term desires to abolish Versailles through re-armament and the reclamation of land lost after the Great war as well as his desire to combat a perceived "Judo-bolshevik" threat from the U.S.S.R while simultaneously gaining his beloved Lebensraum and economic autarky were large contributive factors to the outbreak of war in Europe.

However, there were other, external factors too that technically were to blame for the war as well.

For starters, I think one should firstly consider the policy of appeasement initiated by Britain and France from 1934 onwards. Practically allowing re-armament, re-militarization of the Rhineland, Anschluss with Austria and the infamous Munich agreement that sealed the fate of the Czech republic and alienated the USSR as a possible immediate ally to deter German aggression were massive flaws of British and french diplomatic ethos that were to have dire consequences. Not only did it merely embolden Hitler, it inevitably lead to Germany being in a far more advantageous position at the outbreak of war as compared to the precarious situation it would have faced had the terms of Versailles and the foreign sanctity of Czechoslovakia and Austria been enforced rigorously.

Another guilty party would obviously be the U.S.S.R for the signing of the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact. However, considering Stalin's paranoia and desire to establish defensive satelite states in order to buy time for Soviet re-armament as well as the apparent betrayal of the West in Munich, it would seem only natural for the U.S.S.R to seek a similar pact of borrowed time. Despite that, Stalin's decision to temporarily allign himself guaranteed a single-front war for the time being for Hitler, a guarantee that he had always yearned for, after having experienced first-hand the inevitable ruin that a two-front war would pose.

Lastly, the league of nation's apparent inability to punish aggresors would be yet another reason as to why war broke out in 1939. The fiasco in abbysynia and Mussolini's annexation without the ostensible british blockade of the Suez against Italian supply transports greatly damaged the league of nation's credibility and authority as the harbinger of peace as proposed by Mr. Wilson at Versailles.

While some might argue that war was inevitable due to the series of economic disasters that spawned populations willing to support radical socialist regimes as well as the humiliation, bankruptcy and anger caused by Versailles, I think otherwise. To me, Britain and France's inability to effectively strictly enforce the Treaty of Versailles, coupled with the misperceived stance toward appeasing Hitler were main reasons why Hitler was far more willing and able to blitzkrieg Poland in 1939. That, coupled with American isolationism and Hitler's insatiable desire to create a racially 'pure' and economically autarkic continental German superpower were the main factors as to why war broke out.

In a nutshell, Germany was certainly responsible for the outbreak of war in Europe. But so were the U.S.S.R, France, Britain, America and the League of Nations to a lesser extent.

[CiviC]

Surely it cannot be doubted that Hitler's aggresive foreign policy, coupled with his long-term desires to abolish Versailles through re-armament and the reclamation of land lost after the Great war as well as his desire to combat a perceived "Judo-bolshevik" threat from the U.S.S.R while simultaneously gaining his beloved Lebensraum and economic autarky were large contributive factors to the outbreak of war in Europe.

However, there were other, external factors too that technically were to blame for the war as well.

For starters, I think one should firstly consider the policy of appeasement initiated by Britain and France from 1934 onwards. Practically allowing re-armament, re-militarization of the Rhineland, Anschluss with Austria and the infamous Munich agreement that sealed the fate of the Czech republic and alienated the USSR as a possible immediate ally to deter German aggression were massive flaws of British and french diplomatic ethos that were to have dire consequences. Not only did it merely embolden Hitler, it inevitably lead to Germany being in a far more advantageous position at the outbreak of war as compared to the precarious situation it would have faced had the terms of Versailles and the foreign sanctity of Czechoslovakia and Austria been enforced rigorously.

Another guilty party would obviously be the U.S.S.R for the signing of the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact. However, considering Stalin's paranoia and desire to establish defensive satelite states in order to buy time for Soviet re-armament as well as the apparent betrayal of the West in Munich, it would seem only natural for the U.S.S.R to seek a similar pact of borrowed time. Despite that, Stalin's decision to temporarily allign himself guaranteed a single-front war for the time being for Hitler, a guarantee that he had always yearned for, after having experienced first-hand the inevitable ruin that a two-front war would pose.

Lastly, the league of nation's apparent inability to punish aggresors would be yet another reason as to why war broke out in 1939. The fiasco in abbysynia and Mussolini's annexation without the ostensible british blockade of the Suez against Italian supply transports greatly damaged the league of nation's credibility and authority as the harbinger of peace as proposed by Mr. Wilson at Versailles.

While some might argue that war was inevitable due to the series of economic disasters that spawned populations willing to support radical socialist regimes as well as the humiliation, bankruptcy and anger caused by Versailles, I think otherwise. To me, Britain and France's inability to effectively strictly enforce the Treaty of Versailles, coupled with the misperceived stance toward appeasing Hitler were main reasons why Hitler was far more willing and able to blitzkrieg Poland in 1939. That, coupled with American isolationism and Hitler's insatiable desire to create a racially 'pure' and economically autarkic continental German superpower were the main factors as to why war broke out.

Very good analysis, I agree entierly

In a nutshell, Germany was certainly responsible for the outbreak of war in Europe. But so were the U.S.S.R, France, Britain, America and the League of Nations to a lesser extent.

If we were to judge all this countries in a court of law, the responsability of Germany for triggering the war is that of a crime with clear intent.
USSR has the role of the accomplice and even co perpetrator.
France and Great Britain are guilty of criminal recklessness (I'm not a specialist of Common Law I hope I got them right).

By their reckless conduct in international affairs France and Great Britain favoured the action of a criminal like Hitler. Still this don't make Hitler less guilty.

Also regarding the role of USSR, they are guilty victims of Hitler : Hitler and Stalin were like two gang leaders that decided to divide the neighbourhoods they will control. But like in any Mafia, mob wars are inevitable so Hitler attacking Stalin wasn't more different then a gang leader trying to eliminate concurence.

[Ludicus]

I'm too reliant on info from sources one can't totally trust because they have an interest in all of it.

The genocide of the Jews was the culmination of years of increasingly discriminatory measures/something to be expected since Hitler's ascension to power.
As Hitler put it in Mein Kampf (1925/26) chapter 15:
"At the beginning of the War, or even during the War, if twelve or fifteen thousand of these Jews who were corrupting the nation had been forced to submit to poison-gas.."
Crystal clear.

[Razor]

Worse - Germany invaded without declaring war. Hitler said something that he is declaring war not before 02.09.1939, already on the 2nd day of war...




Hitler planned to attack France "as quickly as possible" - yet in 1939 - as he clearly said to his generals yet before the Polish Campaign ended (on September 27) and as he repeated in his memorandum on October 9 of 1939 (establishing the first attack date as November 25 1939). But since then the attack date was postponed twenty-nine times before the invasion finally started on May 10 1940, also plans of the invasion changed several times during that time-frame. Oberst Walter Buhle wrote that a much earlier start of Westfeldzig would have been impossible because of casualties in motorized vehicles suffered during the Polish Campaign alone.

That is still well after France and Britain had declared war on Germany.

So it's Britain and France's fault for honoring an alliance? Granted, I could see how Hitler might believe that they might not honor their guarantees to Poland, but he still new that France and Britain had a high probability of getting involved if Germany actually declared war on Poland. It's still Germany's fault in that respect.

Well the Allies already let Austria and Czechoslovakia down by doing nothing and appeasing Germany. The Allies were being inconsistent on this so no one couldn't have known for sure; some time before the Allies also agreed to guarantee Austria's independence. When the Anschluss came nothing happened other than saying: "you naughty boy...".

The passivity of Franco-British on Western Front is beyond comprehension to me. It is the last drop of some idiotic decissions made by these two Great Powers after those of allowing Hitler to reoccupy Rheinland, to annex Austria and Sudetenland, to dismantle Czechosolvakia (here Poland has a little guilt too), to rearm Germany ...

Oh, the stupidity of some political leaders cost so much Europe ...

Actually by the principles of the Versailles Treaty and Woodrow Wilson about self-determination everything up to the partition of Czechoslovakia regarding to Germany's actions can be defended with good arguments. The occupation of the Rhineland was controversial and didn't help anyone and put a restraint on economic development and recovery. The Anschluss of Austria and Sudetenland was pretty popular among the population. Sure some might have preferred Austrian independence but the public opinion was generally positive.
Also I don't see why the rearmament of Germany is such a problem. Every country has a right to have an army of its own liking right? With hindsight you can always say oh stupids, stupids, but really what right did other nations have to prevent Germany from having a normal army and from wanting indisputable German territory incorporated into their own country (other than a doubtful treaty because Germany happened to have lost a war twenty years before)?
IMO the Allies should have waited longer and should not have declared war on Germany. But then again Germany was using raw force because negotiations ended up nowhere, then again negotiations were going nowhere because the Poles emboldened after knowing they had France And Britain behind them... Add to that the growing tensions within disputed Polish territory between Germans and Poles. Please admit that it was quite an ugly situation in which no one was to blame and yet everyone was to blame at the same time. I really really wonder what would have happened if France and Britain had backed down with their support for Poland.

These have been mentioned a hundred times and it was not my intention to suggest something else for a reason. My concern, though, is why did they invade Denmark while they did have alternatives. Moreover, if the Germans invaded Belgium because of 'military necessity', then why did they also invade the Netherlans? They could have let them be just like WWI.



They helped the Italians in the African Campaign with the Panzer Corps and in the Battle of Greece with their invasion, granted. But in the first campaign, they were already enemies with the British and they could do whatever they wished to fight them. Greece, on the contrary, had been invaded by the Italians, though after their withdrawal, Hitler could mediate a peace between them and the Greeks, before attempting to invade. Once again, he saw no alternatives to war.


I was referring to the transportation route between the iron ore of Sweden and Germany, which could be guaranteed with an agreement with the Danish government.
Thanks for the advice, although I can't see me anywhere making up things from my mind. Nor can I see where I ignore those 'pretty basic' facts. Enlighten me when you have the time.

First forgive me for reacting a bit rude. It wasn't my intention. Back on topic, all (small) neutral countries were a liability for Germany because though they wanted to remain neutral those countries couldn't possibly hold out for long against a possible invasion of Britain and France and then they would turn to the allies' side anyway. Therefore Germany took the initiative and invaded Denmark and Norway and also the Netherlands along with Belgium, Luxemburg and France unlike WW1.
In WW1 the Netherlands was continuously under pressure from the allies, because Germany could trade with us and we fared well because of that. Had WW1 dragged on a little longer the Netherlands would have been forced by the allies to choose sides.
Remember that the allies invaded neutral Vichy in North Africa in 1942 (Operation Torch) turning Vichy towards the allies, causing the annexation of Vichy France proper.

Surely it cannot be doubted that Hitler's aggresive foreign policy, coupled with his long-term desires to abolish Versailles through re-armament and the reclamation of land lost after the Great war as well as his desire to combat a perceived "Judo-bolshevik" threat from the U.S.S.R while simultaneously gaining his beloved Lebensraum and economic autarky were large contributive factors to the outbreak of war in Europe.

However, there were other, external factors too that technically were to blame for the war as well.

For starters, I think one should firstly consider the policy of appeasement initiated by Britain and France from 1934 onwards. Practically allowing re-armament, re-militarization of the Rhineland, Anschluss with Austria and the infamous Munich agreement that sealed the fate of the Czech republic and alienated the USSR as a possible immediate ally to deter German aggression were massive flaws of British and french diplomatic ethos that were to have dire consequences. Not only did it merely embolden Hitler, it inevitably lead to Germany being in a far more advantageous position at the outbreak of war as compared to the precarious situation it would have faced had the terms of Versailles and the foreign sanctity of Czechoslovakia and Austria been enforced rigorously.

Another guilty party would obviously be the U.S.S.R for the signing of the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact. However, considering Stalin's paranoia and desire to establish defensive satelite states in order to buy time for Soviet re-armament as well as the apparent betrayal of the West in Munich, it would seem only natural for the U.S.S.R to seek a similar pact of borrowed time. Despite that, Stalin's decision to temporarily allign himself guaranteed a single-front war for the time being for Hitler, a guarantee that he had always yearned for, after having experienced first-hand the inevitable ruin that a two-front war would pose.

Lastly, the league of nation's apparent inability to punish aggresors would be yet another reason as to why war broke out in 1939. The fiasco in abbysynia and Mussolini's annexation without the ostensible british blockade of the Suez against Italian supply transports greatly damaged the league of nation's credibility and authority as the harbinger of peace as proposed by Mr. Wilson at Versailles.

While some might argue that war was inevitable due to the series of economic disasters that spawned populations willing to support radical socialist regimes as well as the humiliation, bankruptcy and anger caused by Versailles, I think otherwise. To me, Britain and France's inability to effectively strictly enforce the Treaty of Versailles, coupled with the misperceived stance toward appeasing Hitler were main reasons why Hitler was far more willing and able to blitzkrieg Poland in 1939. That, coupled with American isolationism and Hitler's insatiable desire to create a racially 'pure' and economically autarkic continental German superpower were the main factors as to why war broke out.

In a nutshell, Germany was certainly responsible for the outbreak of war in Europe. But so were the U.S.S.R, France, Britain, America and the League of Nations to a lesser extent.

Very good analysis, I agree entierly



If we were to judge all this countries in a court of law, the responsability of Germany for triggering the war is that of a crime with clear intent.
USSR has the role of the accomplice and even co perpetrator.
France and Great Britain are guilty of criminal recklessness (I'm not a specialist of Common Law I hope I got them right).

By their reckless conduct in international affairs France and Great Britain favoured the action of a criminal like Hitler. Still this don't make Hitler less guilty.

Also regarding the role of USSR, they are guilty victims of Hitler : Hitler and Stalin were like two gang leaders that decided to divide the neighbourhoods they will control. But like in any Mafia, mob wars are inevitable so Hitler attacking Stalin wasn't more different then a gang leader trying to eliminate concurence.

Though indeed it's a nice piece to read it only tells you the story from the Allies' perspective. You're basically saying that the allies should have strictly followed the Treaty of Versailles which they didn't which caused Hitler to become emboldened because the allies didn't react or mildly towards Germany's violation of the Versailles Treaty.

From Germany's perspective the Versailles Treaty was unfair. It restricted the sovereignty of Germany because of its restrictions on armed forces and the occupation of the Rhine area. Also the Germans who were forced to live outside post-1919 Germany because of the Versailles Treaty (Austrians, Sudeten Germans, Germans in Danzig, Germans in disputed area in formerly German now Polish West Prussia etc.). The Allies realized that the Versailles Treaty wasn't completely fair and wouldn't do anyone good and because of different opinions on the matter (France wouldn't do anything without Britain) the Allies didn't really act when Germany violated the Versailles Treaty. They tried to regain what was lost (Danzig, Memel, West Prussia) and gain what was prohibited by the Versailles Treaty (Austria and Sudetenland). Ultimately failed negotiations with Poland on Danzig and West Prussia caused Germany to decide to use military force, expecting that Britain and France wouldn't want to risk war with Germany over Danzig which was a miscalculation.

In the end I come to pretty much the same conclusion. The fact that the Allies didn't do anything before (Anschluss Austria and Sudetenland) most likely emboldened Hitler to do the same over Danzig and West Prussia causing a miscalculation of the Allies, and the Allies emboldened the Poles in their stance in the negotiations over Danzig and West Prussia.
So basically it comes down to Allied inconsistency concerning "appeasement" of Germany which caused an emboldened of Hitler miscalculating the Allies and the Allied involvement in backing up Poland causing the Poles to embolden their stance against the Germans in the negotiations over disputed territory.

In my book clearly errors on both sides but with a little more sympathy to the German cause because of their consistent will to eradicate the IMO unjust Versailles Treaty in contrary to the inconsistency and haziness of the Allies.

The genocide of the Jews was the culmination of years of increasingly discriminatory measures/something to be expected since Hitler's ascension to power.
As Hitler put it in Mein Kampf (1925/26) chapter 15:
"At the beginning of the War, or even during the War, if twelve or fifteen thousand of these Jews who were corrupting the nation had been forced to submit to poison-gas.."
Crystal clear.

Eh? If, then...? The quote doesn't appear to be correct. But Mein Kampf cannot be used to prove facts concerning the Holocaust anyway. Discriminatory yes, but Hitler didn't want to kill all the Jews, he wanted the Jews to get out of Germany. The Holocaust only came into being in 1941/1942 when the Jews couldn't get deported out of Germany anymore due to the war and failures on the Eastern front.

[Tiberios]

First forgive me for reacting a bit rude. It wasn't my intention. Back on topic, all (small) neutral countries were a liability for Germany because though they wanted to remain neutral those countries couldn't possibly hold out for long against a possible invasion of Britain and France and then they would turn to the allies' side anyway. Therefore Germany took the initiative and invaded Denmark and Norway and also the Netherlands along with Belgium, Luxemburg and France unlike WW1.
In WW1 the Netherlands was continuously under pressure from the allies, because Germany could trade with us and we fared well because of that. Had WW1 dragged on a little longer the Netherlands would have been forced by the allies to choose sides.
Remember that the allies invaded neutral Vichy in North Africa in 1942 (Operation Torch) turning Vichy towards the allies, causing the annexation of Vichy France proper.

I get your point, it's just that Germany didn't gain that much from invading Denmark. The Danish government was so hell bent on neutralily and not provoking Germany that Germany could easily have gotten the right to transport ore and such through denmark. Denmark still suffered from the 1864 syndrome and was in no way willing to enter the war.

[intel]

IMO the Allies should have waited longer and should not have declared war on Germany.

And allow Germany to take Poland?
Wut?
Really, Czechoslovakia's case already went too far. Not only Hitler carved an independent state of it's ethnicaly German- which could be (barely) justified by Hitler's nationalist policy-but he created protectorate and puppet states out of Czechoslovakia. How is that not aggresive, how is that not imperialistic, and finally-how can be this justified?

But then again Germany was using raw force because negotiations ended up nowhere

You have guts to call it negotiations? Well, Hitler wasn't really interested in any compromise. Satisfying his demandings (hardly "negotiation attempts") meant not only loss of sovereignity to another state, but also either bankruptcy of Polish state of it's complete economical dependence on Germany.

then again negotiations were going nowhere because the Poles emboldened after knowing they had France And Britain behind them...

No, negatiations were going nowhere because of Hitler's insolent and outrageous demandings.

Add to that the growing tensions within disputed Polish territory between Germans and Poles. Please admit that it was quite an ugly situation in which no one was to blame and yet everyone was to blame at the same time.

One can hardly admit that. Germans were given exactly the same rights as Polish citzens (contrary to IIIrd Reich, where non-Germans were constantly terrorised by German state), furthermore they never really constituted majority in both Polish Prussia, Greater Poland and Polish parts of Silesia.

I really really wonder what would have happened if France and Britain had backed down with their support for Poland.

Hitler would gain his lebensraum and another protectorate. As simple as that. Is that really what would you like to happen?

The Holocaust only came into being in 1941/1942 when the Jews couldn't get deported out of Germany anymore due to the war and failures on the Eastern front.

What the...?!
What about mistreatment of Jews BEFORE 1941/1942? Surely, it was on lesser, not industrial scale, but still-there were hundreds of thousands of Jews murdered in pre-1942 years, and twice as many atrocities.

[CiviC]

Though indeed it's a nice piece to read it only tells you the story from the Allies' perspective. You're basically saying that the allies should have strictly followed the Treaty of Versailles which they didn't which caused Hitler to become emboldened because the allies didn't react or mildly towards Germany's violation of the Versailles Treaty.

From Germany's perspective the Versailles Treaty was unfair. It restricted the sovereignty of Germany because of its restrictions on armed forces and the occupation of the Rhine area. Also the Germans who were forced to live outside post-1919 Germany because of the Versailles Treaty (Austrians, Sudeten Germans, Germans in Danzig, Germans in disputed area in formerly German now Polish West Prussia etc.). The Allies realized that the Versailles Treaty wasn't completely fair and wouldn't do anyone good and because of different opinions on the matter (France wouldn't do anything without Britain) the Allies didn't really act when Germany violated the Versailles Treaty. They tried to regain what was lost (Danzig, Memel, West Prussia) and gain what was prohibited by the Versailles Treaty (Austria and Sudetenland). Ultimately failed negotiations with Poland on Danzig and West Prussia caused Germany to decide to use military force, expecting that Britain and France wouldn't want to risk war with Germany over Danzig which was a miscalculation.

In the end I come to pretty much the same conclusion. The fact that the Allies didn't do anything before (Anschluss Austria and Sudetenland) most likely emboldened Hitler to do the same over Danzig and West Prussia causing a miscalculation of the Allies, and the Allies emboldened the Poles in their stance in the negotiations over Danzig and West Prussia.
So basically it comes down to Allied inconsistency concerning "appeasement" of Germany which caused an emboldened of Hitler miscalculating the Allies and the Allied involvement in backing up Poland causing the Poles to embolden their stance against the Germans in the negotiations over disputed territory.

In my book clearly errors on both sides but with a little more sympathy to the German cause because of their consistent will to eradicate the IMO unjust Versailles Treaty in contrary to the inconsistency and haziness of the Allies.

C'mon, stop presenting Germany as the big victim of Versailles and the agressions of Germany against independent states of Europe like Austria, Czechoslovakia and Poland as mere rectifications of "the great injustice" Germans suffered after WWI.

Somehow you conclude it's the fault of Poles for not surrending Gdansk to Hitler. That was the great mistake before, Europe bowed to Hitler wishes and gave him everything he wanted. Only it's clear his aim wasn't to repair the wrongs (as they were perceived by Germans) of the Treaty of Versailles. As he wasn't satified only with Austria and Sudentenland he had to destroy entierly Czechoslovachia amd made Bohemia a protectorate - the whole matter was a great crime against the principles of international law to amputate and dismantle in such a way and independent state with the benediction of France and Great Britain. From Poland he didn't wanted only Gdansk, he wanted to dismantle that state too and it's not hard to prove that - look at the Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact. And if France and Great Britain would have let him engulf Poland, how long before Hitler would have said "oh poor Alsacians under French boot" and "those pesky Britissh, why should they have all the colonies?". And of course, why Soviets should have all that vital space in the East?

My conclusion, WWII wasn't for Versailles, Versailles was only a propaganda pretext for Hitler, his aims reached far beyond the provisions of Treaty of Versalles and this can be deduced also from his Mein Kampf and speaches.

Unfortunately for France and GB they draw the line to late, they let the monster grow and betrayed their allies : Czechoslovakia, Poland, Romania, Yugoslavia, even Soviet Union was convinced that the guarantors of Versailles were lacking political foresight and made the deal with Hitler instead.

Hitler was poised from the start to bring Europe under total German domination.

[Ludicus]

Eh? If, then...? The quote doesn't appear to be correct

No, it´s absolutely correct. Read the chapter 15.

But Mein Kampf cannot be used to prove facts concerning the Holocaust anyway

Of course not.
Reread my post:"The genocide of the Jews was the culmination of years of increasingly discriminatory measures/something to be expected since Hitler's ascension to power-as Hitler put it in Mein Kampf (1925/26) chapter 15 "

The Holocaust only came into being in 1941/1942

Well, it seems that you are not an holocaust denier.

[Lord Claremorris]

That is still well after France and Britain had declared war on Germany.

What a joke. Norway and Denmark would never have gone to war with Germany. Nations do not enter wars they cannot hope to win, unless forced to. Britain and France would never invade them either, to attack Germany through them. That's absurd, what would be the point of that? The allies had command of the sea, and could go anywhere in the world, they could simply sail around Denmark if they wished. I see that as an incredibly weak argument, to say the invasion of helpless neutrals was 'necessary' because they would help the allies or be attacked by the allies.

Well the Allies already let Austria and Czechoslovakia down by doing nothing and appeasing Germany. The Allies were being inconsistent on this so no one couldn't have known for sure; some time before the Allies also agreed to guarantee Austria's independence. When the Anschluss came nothing happened other than saying: "you naughty boy...".

Well if you knew the level of preparation of the British Armed Forces, and the complete horror of another war against Germany in France, then you'd realise that neither France or Britain was prepared for a war on the scale of WWI in 1936.

Actually by the principles of the Versailles Treaty and Woodrow Wilson about self-determination everything up to the partition of Czechoslovakia regarding to Germany's actions can be defended with good arguments. The occupation of the Rhineland was controversial and didn't help anyone and put a restraint on economic development and recovery. The Anschluss of Austria and Sudetenland was pretty popular among the population. Sure some might have preferred Austrian independence but the public opinion was generally positive.
Also I don't see why the rearmament of Germany is such a problem. Every country has a right to have an army of its own liking right? With hindsight you can always say oh stupids, stupids, but really what right did other nations have to prevent Germany from having a normal army and from wanting indisputable German territory incorporated into their own country (other than a doubtful treaty because Germany happened to have lost a war twenty years before)?
IMO the Allies should have waited longer and should not have declared war on Germany. But then again Germany was using raw force because negotiations ended up nowhere, then again negotiations were going nowhere because the Poles emboldened after knowing they had France And Britain behind them... Add to that the growing tensions within disputed Polish territory between Germans and Poles. Please admit that it was quite an ugly situation in which no one was to blame and yet everyone was to blame at the same time. I really really wonder what would have happened if France and Britain had backed down with their support for Poland.

What negotiations? Hitler demanding more and more territory? Yeah, okay.

First forgive me for reacting a bit rude. It wasn't my intention. Back on topic, all (small) neutral countries were a liability for Germany because though they wanted to remain neutral those countries couldn't possibly hold out for long against a possible invasion of Britain and France and then they would turn to the allies' side anyway. Therefore Germany took the initiative and invaded Denmark and Norway and also the Netherlands along with Belgium, Luxemburg and France unlike WW1.
In WW1 the Netherlands was continuously under pressure from the allies, because Germany could trade with us and we fared well because of that. Had WW1 dragged on a little longer the Netherlands would have been forced by the allies to choose sides.
Remember that the allies invaded neutral Vichy in North Africa in 1942 (Operation Torch) turning Vichy towards the allies, causing the annexation of Vichy France proper.

The Allies invaded a collaborationist power that held only a shred of independence. Futhermore, the Allies possessed Charles de Gaulle, who they (or at least the British) regarded AS France. Technically the British recognised all of French North Africa (and everything else owned by France) to be under the jurisdiction of de Gaulle. They figured the French would see reason and declare for de Gaulle and then it would be allied territory. Since this in fact happened, after initial resistance, it makes your point moot.

Though indeed it's a nice piece to read it only tells you the story from the Allies' perspective. You're basically saying that the allies should have strictly followed the Treaty of Versailles which they didn't which caused Hitler to become emboldened because the allies didn't react or mildly towards Germany's violation of the Versailles Treaty.

From Germany's perspective the Versailles Treaty was unfair. It restricted the sovereignty of Germany because of its restrictions on armed forces and the occupation of the Rhine area. Also the Germans who were forced to live outside post-1919 Germany because of the Versailles Treaty (Austrians, Sudeten Germans, Germans in Danzig, Germans in disputed area in formerly German now Polish West Prussia etc.). The Allies realized that the Versailles Treaty wasn't completely fair and wouldn't do anyone good and because of different opinions on the matter (France wouldn't do anything without Britain) the Allies didn't really act when Germany violated the Versailles Treaty. They tried to regain what was lost (Danzig, Memel, West Prussia) and gain what was prohibited by the Versailles Treaty (Austria and Sudetenland). Ultimately failed negotiations with Poland on Danzig and West Prussia caused Germany to decide to use military force, expecting that Britain and France wouldn't want to risk war with Germany over Danzig which was a miscalculation.

In the end I come to pretty much the same conclusion. The fact that the Allies didn't do anything before (Anschluss Austria and Sudetenland) most likely emboldened Hitler to do the same over Danzig and West Prussia causing a miscalculation of the Allies, and the Allies emboldened the Poles in their stance in the negotiations over Danzig and West Prussia.
So basically it comes down to Allied inconsistency concerning "appeasement" of Germany which caused an emboldened of Hitler miscalculating the Allies and the Allied involvement in backing up Poland causing the Poles to embolden their stance against the Germans in the negotiations over disputed territory.

In my book clearly errors on both sides but with a little more sympathy to the German cause because of their consistent will to eradicate the IMO unjust Versailles Treaty in contrary to the inconsistency and haziness of the Allies.

Why wasn't the Treaty of Versailles 'fair?' Germany was vanquished in war, and Germany was treated much more leniently than Russia was treated, by Germany at Brest-Litovsk. The Germans lost, and the allies tried to devise ways to prevent Germany from threatening them again. The result was Versailles. Would you honestly not do the same?

Eh? If, then...? The quote doesn't appear to be correct. But Mein Kampf cannot be used to prove facts concerning the Holocaust anyway. Discriminatory yes, but Hitler didn't want to kill all the Jews, he wanted the Jews to get out of Germany. The Holocaust only came into being in 1941/1942 when the Jews couldn't get deported out of Germany anymore due to the war and failures on the Eastern front.

Of course. You can't use anything that proves your point is rubbish. Hitler wanted the Jews gone, he made that clear in Mein Kampf. He didn't explain how they were to be removed but the obvious implication is there.

EDIT:

I heard that was partly the fault of the general retardation of the French high command. Apparently no one except a certain de Gaulle (to quote my history professor) thought it possible that German tank divisions would cross the Ardennes. Yeah right, the Germans were likely to attack the heavily fortified Maginot line

How exactly was the French High Command retarded? Blitzkrieg was completely new, they had no conception of it. Furthermore, they had no stomach for an attack on Germany because they tried that in the last war and failed miserably at high cost of life. The French did not expect the Germans to attack the Maginot Line, they weren't idiots. What they did expect was the Germany would come through Belgium in an arc precisely like WWI. The Germans gave them that impression then played their trump card, the Ardennes. The French High Command energetically attempted to stabilise the front but it was a lost cause. They weren't retarded, just duped.

[CiviC]

How exactly was the French High Command retarded? Blitzkrieg was completely new, they had no conception of it. Furthermore, they had no stomach for an attack on Germany because they tried that in the last war and failed miserably at high cost of life. The French did not expect the Germans to attack the Maginot Line, they weren't idiots. What they did expect was the Germany would come through Belgium in an arc precisely like WWI. The Germans gave them that impression then played their trump card, the Ardennes. The French High Command energetically attempted to stabilise the front but it was a lost cause. They weren't retarded, just duped.

What I reproach to Franco-British is their passivity and TOTAL LACK OF INITIATIVE. You can't expect to win a war if you let the enemy to have ALL initiative. The Franco-British only reacted to German action :when Germany attacked Poland, they declared war and then did nothing; when Germans invaded Denmark and Norway, they only reacted by sending troops to fight there; finally they let Germans to prepare and attack first on Western Front and choose their targets and directions of attack. They let Germany the chance to destroy Poland first and avoid a two front war : it's no wonder France was crushed - it was alone, half the size of Germany, underprepared and helped only by an insuficient British contingent. I wouldn't put the blame only on High Command, politicians from France and GB are responsible too : after Versailles, there was in Eastern Europe a block of sizeble countries that could have counter Germany and Soviet Union - Poland, Czechoslovakia, Romania and Yugoslavia (the last three had a military alliance called Little Entente). By betraying Czechoslovakia, France and GB destroyed this cordon sanitaire and turned the balance in favour of revisionist states - Germany, Hungary, Bulgaria, Italy and of course Soviet Union.

[Lord Claremorris]

What I reproach to Franco-British is their passivity and TOTAL LACK OF INITIATIVE. You can't expect to win a war if you let the enemy to have ALL initiative. The Franco-British only reacted to German action :when Germany attacked Poland, they declared war and then did nothing; when Germans invaded Denmark and Norway, they only reacted by sending troops to fight there; finally they let Germans to prepare and attack first on Western Front and choose their targets and directions of attack. They let Germany the chance to destroy Poland first and avoid a two front war : it's no wonder France was crushed - it was alone, half the size of Germany, underprepared and helped only by an insuficient British contingent. I wouldn't put the blame only on High Command, politicians from France and GB are responsible too : after Versailles, there was in Eastern Europe a block of sizeble countries that could have counter Germany and Soviet Union - Poland, Czechoslovakia, Romania and Yugoslavia (the last three had a military alliance called Little Entente). By betraying Czechoslovakia, France and GB destroyed this cordon sanitaire and turned the balance in favour of revisionist states - Germany, Hungary, Bulgaria, Italy and of course Soviet Union.

And what exactly were they supposed to do? Attack the Siegfriend line? When they were already outnumbered as it was? Attack fortifications? France could not attack Germany in 1940, it could go around the Siegfried line, but that would entail violating the neutrality of Belgium or Holland or both. France did all it could, I cannot logically suggest that France attack Germany. As for the Little Entente, don't be so rash as to say that it absolutely 'could have stopped Germany.' It may, or many not have. It's hard for me to believe nations like Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakia could have resisted a Blitzkrieg when nations like France and Poland, and almost the USSR could not.

As for the United Kingdom, it could do even less. Being primarily a naval power the British had a whole 12 Divisions on the continent, it would be suicide to attack Germany with these. However, the British could have defeated the Germans in Norway, if they weren't so hell bent on finding the German Fleet. As far as I'm aware the Royal Navy dumped a bunch of lads in Narvik with barely any equipment and went sailing about the Fjords searching for German ships. So one could fairly say that the British botched the Norwegian Campaign and because of blundering on their part the Germans succeeded in an amphibious operation in the very teeth of overwhelming British naval superiority. We can fully blame Britain for ineptitude on that part.

So in essence, I can't really see how the Western Allies could have done much more. Sure, they gave the initiative to Germany, but neither were capable of taking the intiative themselves. So it was inevitable.