Unthinkable

[Northern Neil]

Britain started the WW2 ...

Wrong; WWII was started by Herr Hitler; please check on your sources.

I suppose one could argue that Britain and France were to blame when they made the treaty of Versailles and got the Germans angry. If they had not taken land away from Germany then maybe World War 2 never would have happened.

...but then, if Germany had not taken Alsace - Lorraine off France and humiliated them at the Siege of Paris in the Franco - Prussian war, the provisions of the Treaty of Versaiiles may not have been as far reaching...

[Centurion-Macro]

Britain started the WW2 ...

Wrong; WWII was started by Herr Hitler; please check on your sources.

I suppose one could argue that Britain and France were to blame when they made the treaty of Versailles and got the Germans angry. If they had not taken land away from Germany then maybe World War 2 never would have happened.

...but then, if Germany had not taken Alsace - Lorraine off France and humiliated them at the Siege of Paris in the Franco - Prussian war, the provisions of the Treaty of Versaiiles may not have been as far reaching...

But if France had not started the Franco-Prussian war in the first place...

[sylla]

Britain started the WW2 ...

Wrong; WWII was started by Herr Hitler; please check on your sources.

I suppose one could argue that Britain and France were to blame when they made the treaty of Versailles and got the Germans angry. If they had not taken land away from Germany then maybe World War 2 never would have happened.

...but then, if Germany had not taken Alsace - Lorraine off France and humiliated them at the Siege of Paris in the Franco - Prussian war, the provisions of the Treaty of Versaiiles may not have been as far reaching...

But if France had not started the Franco-Prussian war in the first place...

And what if Cain had not killed Abel?

And what if the Neanderthals were not wiped out by the Sapiens?

And what if conflict were not inherent to the human condition?

 

Historical philosophy aside, Herr Hitler began WWII entirely on his own, expressly against the best opinion of most of his generals and advisers. When he attacked Poland, he was perfectly aware of what he was doing; and even if the Allies wouldn't have retaliated, we now know he was going to attack them anyway (please somebody tell me that was such a big surprise!). Herr Hitler never denied such fact, and as far as I can tell, he was always proud of it.

And of course, no Versailles could be argued for the Nazi invasion of Norway, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, Yugoslavia, Greece, Russia or Denmark (in fact, the Schleswig was left untouched). Even more; Herr Hitler had no problem with the former Austrian Istria and Trentino regions remaining in Italian hands.

Edited August 9, 2009 by sylla

[Centurion-Macro]

Britain started the WW2 ...

Wrong; WWII was started by Herr Hitler; please check on your sources.

I suppose one could argue that Britain and France were to blame when they made the treaty of Versailles and got the Germans angry. If they had not taken land away from Germany then maybe World War 2 never would have happened.

...but then, if Germany had not taken Alsace - Lorraine off France and humiliated them at the Siege of Paris in the Franco - Prussian war, the provisions of the Treaty of Versaiiles may not have been as far reaching...

But if France had not started the Franco-Prussian war in the first place...

And what if Cain had not killed Abel?

And what if the Neanderthals were not wiped out by the Sapiens?

And what if conflict were not inherent to the human condition?

 

Historical philosophy aside, Herr Hitler began WWII entirely on his own, expressly against the best opinion of most of his generals and advisers. When he attacked Poland, he was perfectly aware of what he was doing; and even if the Allies wouldn't have retaliated, we now know he was going to attack them anyway (please somebody tell me that was such a big surprise!). Herr Hitler never denied such fact, and as far as I can tell, he was always proud of it.

And of course, no Versailles could be argued for the Nazi invasion of Norway, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, Yugoslavia, Greece, Russia or Denmark (in fact, the Schleswig was left untouched). Even more; Herr Hitler had no problem with the former Austrian Istria and Trentino regions remaining in Italian hands.

It is true that he started it on his own, but it is also true that Britain and France bought this upon himself. Because of the Versailles treaty I have no doubt that if Hitler had not come, then someone else would have. In reality everyone has to take a bit of the blame. Although Hitler was a great part of it.

[Kosmo]

Hitler did not want a war with Britain. He attacked Poland but that did not necessarily meant that Britain and France had to fight Germany over Poland (or the SU that attacked Poland as well 2 weeks later) especially considering that they could offer no support to a country surrounded from 3 sides by Germany.

The problem was the fact that after WW1 Central and Eastern Europe were composed from many small and weak countries with internal and external problems (like the Polish-Czechoslovakian conflict or the conflicts within Jugoslavia) that the French dreamed of using to contain Germany and the SU. When Germany started to arm and assert itself in this vacuum there were only 2 possible courses of action: starting a war in Western Europe to protect the weak states of Central Europe (that was eventually the British choice) or a appeasement policy that let Germany do what it desired (the former protector of Central Europe, France, preferred this policy)

"What if" Britain and France would have not declared war against Germany on 3 september would be an interesting but hard guess but it's certain that giving in the spring guarantees to Poland was a bad move because it straightened the soviet bargaining position (now Britain and France would be drawn in the war if Germany attacked the SU by Poland while the soviets had no obligation to anyone), gave high hopes to the polish already hallucinate leaders so they resisted german demands and launched a "dare you" challenge to Hitler in his own backyard.

What is remarkable both before WW2, its early and late stages and soon after was the efficient diplomacy of the SU that outsmarted everyone. Diplomatic wits turned WW2 in a huge soviet victory and the SU in a superpower.

[sylla]

Hold your horses, people; multiple arguments are being debated simultaneously here.

First the first; regarding Herr Hitler, you must be kidding. Just the idea of debating if he may have begun WWII or not seems like ludicrous to the nth degree, but then; here we go!

 

No treaty has been perfect ever; under the rationale expressed before, there would simply never be an excuse for peace.

In fact, under the same anti-Versailles logic, the Germans should attack their neighbors today, as their territorial losses relative to 1918 are currently far greater than in 1919; not to talk about the condition of Germany (any Germany) across the late 1940s and early 1950s.

 

Chamberlain & Daladier had already accepted the return of virtually all the predominantly ethnic German territories to the Reich by the end of 1938; it was only after Herr Hitler conquered and opressed six millions of non-German Czechs when the compulsively aggressive Nazi policy became evident to even the most naive observer.

 

Hitler's attitude regarding the UK seems to have been indeed equivocal at the beginning; he may even have truly expected to share the World conquest with the British Empire.

In any case, it's hard to imagine how the invasion of British allies would have not been perceived as an act of war.

Besides, Herr Hitler had already begun his Plan Z (improvement of the Kriegsmarine) in the early 1939, violating the Anglo-German Naval Treaty of 1935.

And the first civil sinking (SS Athenia) was performed by the U-30 (Lemp) at the very first day of the war, quite far from any potential war zone.

 

Naturally, regarding France there were never double thoughts; the invasion was planned from long before the war.

On the unprovoked German invasion of many countries not related with Versailles, please check on my previous post.

Edited August 9, 2009 by sylla

[Maladict]

What is remarkable both before WW2, its early and late stages and soon after was the efficient diplomacy of the SU that outsmarted everyone. Diplomatic wits turned WW2 in a huge soviet victory and the SU in a superpower.

 

It is interesting that the SU adhered to its defense pact with the Czechs until the end, a cunning pact that was only valid if France adhered to it as well.

In hindsight, the war could have been won so easily it's almost silly. The Czech and French armies outnumbered the Germans by more than 2:1, and they had numerous promises from Britain and the Soviets that they would side with them if Germany attacked the Czechs. It boggles the mind why Chamberlain was still so intent to sacrifice the Sudetenland and then again the rump Czech state, but I suppose the scars of WWI did run that deep.

Edited August 9, 2009 by Maladict

[sylla]

In hindsight, another France would have been required for winning the War so easily, and certainly not under Gamelin's command; the III Republic patiently waited across eight months of phoney war for the III Reich to get ready and take the initiative, just for being utterly crushed after less than two weeks with negligible German casualties.

 

The opportunistic Soviet diplomacy of the time was frequently cleaver, but if the SU became a superpower, that was due to a huge economic and military effort, essentially in spite of their diplomatic deeds.

 

Let the numbers talk; after the Ribbentrop-Molotov pact (Ags 23, 1939) the efficient Soviet diplomacy resulted in the loss of some 26,600,000 Soviet citizens (1/7 of their whole population), by far the largest national casualties figure from any international war in History (like two and a half times the global military deaths from World War I); even without reviewing their immense material losses, that didn't smell so much as victory as usually depicted.

 

Let us now check out the side of the "dumb" American policy; little more than 400,000 US lives were lost (naturally including the Far East operations against Japan); even the UK itself lost far less citizens than in World War I. In spite of those relatively few casualties, the Allies were still able to crush the biggest military threat in History.

 

The main explanation was, of course, the prudent use of the Red Army to kill Germans; like 4,300,000 of the 5,300,000 total casualties of the Wehrmacht were from the Eastern front. Didn't that smell a little more like victory?

 

Now let us check on the political and military evolution of both the US and the SU by the early 1990s... I would say that Fabius Cunctator would have absolutely approved the strategy of one of them; guess which one.

[caesar novus]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rainbow_Five#...coded_war_plans

I guess I shouldn't leave this as an unexplained digression. War plans aren't statements of intent, but interesting learning exercises that can reveal opportunities or make contingencies "unthinkable". I heard a talk from a naval war college prof about the referenced war plans being paired up, to reflect how a second opportunist power will open an additional front.

 

I believe it was the combination of plan orange and red that led to apocalyptic consequences estimated for the US. Well, so what; why would Japan and the UK attack? Well that scenario became more realistic in 1941 when it became conceivable that Germany might be able to reflag the British global navy and support the Japanese navy. So maybe this was behind the "altruistic" US policy of defending Europe with priority above the defense of Pacific?

 

Anyway, funny how all these issues seem to originate from Kaiser/Caesar Wilhelm2. He not only transported Lenin from exile but supported him with money and propaganda when at first Lenin had a poor reception in Russia. (It was a shame that Churchill's original more feasible plan to attack thru Turkey and support the eastern/Russian front was modified to one with doomed tactics.) So the Kaiser begat communist USSR, just as republic of Ireland, and almost a Mexican republic of Texas (Zimmermann telegram).

 

And maybe he enabled WW2 and cold war by:

- Surrendering WW1 a few weeks too soon, before the German populace really comprehended recent military setbacks, and in particular Hitler who had been knocked out of action by wounds just before major turnaround.

- Caused UK and possibly France to finance the war in a disasterous delayed-action effect (bonds) that recent economists think was a root cause of the depression. It was the depression that revived Hitlers political career, after being treated as a streeet thug earlier.

- So weakened the French military that even with superior equipment they folded under Hitlers invasion. This gave Hitler a teflon halo which the German military could not fight against when they considered his further invasions looney (I hear even the invasion of France had the army poised for a coup if it didn't go well).

 

[Ingsoc]

It is true that he started it on his own, but it is also true that Britain and France bought this upon himself. Because of the Versailles treaty I have no doubt that if Hitler had not come, then someone else would have. In reality everyone has to take a bit of the blame. Although Hitler was a great part of it.

 

A common misconception. The German state was only founded in the late 19th century and the German always had the feeling that although they are a great they are being robbed from their proper place "under the sun" as one of the world greatest imperial powers. As Germany lost the war this didn't happened and this was the obvious reason they were upset, regardless of the peace treaty.

 

If there anything to be said against the the allied of WWI was that they didn't go all the way, if they would invaded and conquered Germany the Germans would never thought that their army was never defeated and was "stab in the back" by Jews and Marxists and maybe they even lost their imperial lust just as post-WWII Germany had.

[Kosmo]

What is remarkable both before WW2, its early and late stages and soon after was the efficient diplomacy of the SU that outsmarted everyone. Diplomatic wits turned WW2 in a huge soviet victory and the SU in a superpower.

 

It is interesting that the SU adhered to its defense pact with the Czechs until the end, a cunning pact that was only valid if France adhered to it as well.

In hindsight, the war could have been won so easily it's almost silly. The Czech and French armies outnumbered the Germans by more than 2:1, and they had numerous promises from Britain and the Soviets that they would side with them if Germany attacked the Czechs. It boggles the mind why Chamberlain was still so intent to sacrifice the Sudetenland and then again the rump Czech state, but I suppose the scars of WWI did run that deep.

 

The soviet advantage was that they had no border with Germany or Czechoslovakia and thus while France and the Czech would fight the Germans they would not. Poland (and Romania) wanted no soviet help or soviet armies on their soil. Poland and Hungary also had territorial claims against Czechoslovakia. Czechoslovakia was allied with Romania and Yugoslavia against Hungary.

 

If war would have started then the Germans would have had problems conquering Cehia because the Czech army was well equipped and had fortifications in the border mountains while Germans did not finished their rearming and had only few light tanks. Still France could do little to help because the french-german border was short and easy to fortify (Maginot Line, Siegfried Line) and a frontal attack WW1 style was a nightmare (hence the later Phony War)

 

Soviet diplomacy skillfully avoided fighting the Germans alone (for example the Allies could have struck a deal with the Germans at Munich time and let them invade Poland and the SU first). Then when they were attacked by their German partners got unconditional support from the British and the still neutral US and even later avoided going to war against Japan until they finished off the Germans despite the fact that they could easily defeat in the open lands of Manchuria the Japanese that had no real armor units and had a bad defensive position.

[sylla]

Thinking the unthinkable again, please note a terrific and well-balanced analysis on this issue is available in post # 8 from this same thread; nuff

Edited August 10, 2009 by sylla

[caesar novus]

All in all, it seems evident that sociology has not been given here the place in History that it deserves.

Historical processes (past or ongoing) are essentially the product of the collective contributions of countless hands and minds across decades, centuries or even millennia; when dispassionately analyzed, the real personal influence of even the most notable rulers is almost always rather small.

Truly earthbreaking History-bending characters are utterly exceptional; Herr Hitler may have qualified, but hardly the mediocre Wilhelm II of Hohenzollern.

 

For example, the end of the Tsarism is easily explained from the absolute destabilization by the Great War of a centuries-long feudal-like system already bent beyond the local peasantry survival capabilities , with or without comrade Ulyanov (aka Lenin).

Even more, far more radical characters were already within the Empire, notoriously comrade Djughashvili (aka Stalin).

An analogous case can be made for the genesis of the Great War or the Fall of the Kuomingtang, simply too long for being presented here.

It's true that socio-undercurrents are key, but they don't directly drive events. They are more a fuel waiting for a match. The resulting inferno can take very different directions. The Czar not only could have more competantly utilized ww1 to build his support, but the revolutionaries that did ultimately triumph could have a quite different ideology than bolshevik (didn't Lenin despise Stalin anyway?).

 

And sure, the "great man" theory fails in making events unfold according to his dictates (Hitler, Napolean, and Caesar for a while tho), but even a flake like Willy2 can trigger events in a "unique" direction. Earlier I was hoping to give examples from some Hew Strachan lectures and documentaries other than Willy2, but I couldn't find the references. I believe he said the actual go/no-go decision that put ww1 (begatting ww2 and cold war) into play was misteps by the German foreign minister, who Willy2 failed to leash in.

 

Furthermore Hew talked about the sociology of ww1 as being grossly misunderstood today due to propaganda campaign in the early 60's by peace activists in London. Their ww1 poets criticizing that war were ignored at the time, vs poets praising the national defense angle were the popular ones. I don't know how he resolves that with the French soldiers going on strike, and similar actions by Russians, Italians and a bit by Germans (his live talk indicated some disagreement with the famous documentary series he consulted on).

[sylla]

... even a flake like Willy2 can trigger events in a "unique" direction. Earlier I was hoping to give examples from some Hew Strachan lectures and documentaries other than Willy2, but I couldn't find the references. I believe he said the actual go/no-go decision that put ww1 (begatting ww2 and cold war) into play was misteps by the German foreign minister, who Willy2 failed to leash in.

 

Furthermore Hew talked about the sociology of ww1 as being grossly misunderstood today due to propaganda campaign in the early 60's by peace activists in London. Their ww1 poets criticizing that war were ignored at the time, vs poets praising the national defense angle were the popular ones. I don't know how he resolves that with the French soldiers going on strike, and similar actions by Russians, Italians and a bit by Germans (his live talk indicated some disagreement with the famous documentary series he consulted on).

Let Edited August 11, 2009 by sylla

[caesar novus]

 -- (1618 – 1648 GW) – RP – (1688 – 1721 GW) – RP – (1756 – 1763 GW) – RP – (1789 – 1815 GW) – RP –

 

We may easily continue backwards down to the Roman Empire, but for the sake of brevity I guess a cyclic pattern is already evident.

Wow, that is a really frigging interesting way of examining the forest vs getting bogged down in the nuances of trees. I wonder how it extrapolates to now and the future. I suppose we may be 2/3 into a period of Relative Peace, with only some low level cycling of war lust (witness the temporary dip after Viet Nam, then revival).

 

There are some details I might nitpic along the lines of is it really sociology at work when a small ruling elite works thru ambitions probably incomprehensible to the peasant majority. But OK, that may be sociology of the inteligensia, or at least the informed and able. And pure democracy may be overrated; I hear the US founding fathers hated Greek style direct democracy and strongly preferred Roman inspired representative democracy with gravitas. In fact some lecturer recently claimed the US was uniquely blessed by evolving at the boundary of renaissance and enlightenment so not to go too far in direction of (mob democracy = enlightenment?).

 

And circling back to backstabbing old Stalin, I don't see how this applies. I viscerally hate that guy... for exterminating more millions than Hitler, I think. One source said he also gave key support to Mao's advancement, who also starved millions. I can't believe that Putin has arranged to whitewash Stalin's record and put praise in latest textbooks. There used to be a lone statue of Stalin in the Kremlin, which I once spontaneously cursed at and scared the tourists away (just out of earshot of commie guards).

 

Another observation in the late commie days gives me pause about the viability of a post war conquest of Russia. When people crossed Moscow streets in underground passages (so party limousines didn't have to slow down for pedestrians) you could get a pretty intimate reading of their moods. If a police officer was there, they would be frozen in tense expressions. If just a military officer was walking along, it would all be warm smiles - him basking in adulation with his cartoonish array of medals. So unless you could do a miracle of surgical regime change, I think Soviet military under attack from the west would have fanatical support from the populace (Ukraine et al may be exeptions?)

Edited August 11, 2009 by caesar novus