__________________
Everly Brothers - What I Have To Do Is Dream
"Never wrestle with pigs, you both end up getting dirty and the pig likes it."

The trouble is that we consider Nazi Germany in need of regime change based upon what we know they ended up doing and judging that by today's standards. When exactly do you think the Allied nations would have been justified in pre-emptively attacking Germany? Until Hitler took over Bohemia and Moravia in March, 1939, he hadn't taken over any territories except ones with a clear German majority, the population of which subsequently voted overwhelmingly to incorporation into the Reich.

A lot of people today claim that everyone should have known what Hitler was going to do in relation to lebensraum and the Holocaust but in fact few politicians carry through on their more extreme rhetorical boasts. Yes, there were warning signs from the Nazis but the actual carrying out of the Holocaust surprised even most Germans.

So, in this light, it is not clear that the Allies should have openly opposed Hitler any earlier than they actually did. This leaves your argument about an unnecessary war hinging on the Germans themselves. But how are we to force the Germans to not accept or throw out the Nazis. In the 1930s the Nazis in power were incredibly successful, at least on the surface. This is why the Nazis went from not having even a majority of Germans voting them into power into receiving overwhelming plebiscite victories. The trouble is that there was far more a militaristic presence in Germany than in most other countries, and the way WWI ended, without Germany being clearly defeated on the field of battle, allowed the myth of the dolchstoss to lead into not only support for renewed militarism, but xenophobia against "foreign" elements in the German nation. Considering the way that the First World War ended I see little other way things could have turned out but WWII. Without the Nazis the war probably wouldn't have occurred as quickly but the militarist element in Germany was still much better organized and fanatical than the liberal element.

Jaeger talks about democracy not having been given a fighting chance in Weimer Germany. The fact is that it didn't have a chance because few Germans had any respect for democracy and associated it with the humiliating defeat in WWI. Those liberals who wanted democracy were few in number and were more interested in enjoying their newfound freedoms than in safeguarding those freedoms and so came to lose those freedoms to the extremist elements. Democracy in such a situation naturally lead to an extremist party getting into power and that led into WWII. So, barring a change in the ending of WWI I don't see how WWII was an unnecessary war.

You complained about "fanciful what ifs" and here you're right into the thick of it, going back to WWI and arguing that changes there could have a huge effect on later history. So apparently you don't mind playing the "what if?" game so long as the "what if?" game leads to an Allied victory. You'll have to forgive the rest of us if we aren't so self-restrictive in our own examination of WWII history.

Incidentally, I agree with you completely; if WWI had ended with the complete defeat of Germany and occupation of the country things likely would have turned out very differently. Of course, such an action would have required far more effort and casualties on the part of the Allies and it still isn't certain that democracy would have found a firm foothold on German soil. Remember, it took three Punic Wars for Rome to eliminate the Carthaginian threat. I personally feel it did take two World Wars to extirpate the militaristic element of the German nation.

I may repeat that line on a number of threads but that is because there are a number of posts that clearly demonstrate a failure to understand this (those that end up stating that Hitler was an idiot for the most part). The high horse quip was due to the fact that you were intimating that the rest of us were denigrating the memory of Allied soldiers by coming up with "what if?" scenarios that suggested the Axis had a chance of winning. I don't accept that moralistic judgment and let you know that you shouldn't be claiming the moral high ground exclusively for yourself on that issue. I prefer discussions here to be based on logic and reason, not emotion. Emotional reasoning is what led to war crimes. It is not a large step to go from claiming another group is a bunch of idiots to seeing them as subhuman.

And I have no intention to engage in a death rant from hell with anyone. I simply correct what I see as poor reasoning and hope that others will do the same to my posts if they see that I've been engaging in the same.

Happy Birthday! I actually just celebrated my 32nd a couple of days ago so cheers to a fellow taurus!

I am not talking about attacking anyone. By clearly politically opposing Hitler early on things would have been different. By letting Hitler have what he wanted Hitler himself considered the Western Allied nations and politicians weak and that he could get anything he wanted.

The Allied by refusing to co-operate in Munich 1938 over the Sudeten areas Hitler would have been thrown away by his own Generals. That is quite serious talk about how dangerous the Army men considered Hitler themselves.


http://www.wintersonnenwende.com/scr...pple/wa04.html

Chamberlain by creating this peace deal with Hitler ( " We are not prepared to go to war for a piece of land somwhere on the other side of Europe " mentality ) destroyed this coup
and also the possibility of a peaceful solution in Europe. Now the rest of Czechoslovakia was without any defence protection and easy to conquer in early 1939. Now Britain started arming as well.

As well the Danzig question was as poorly taken care of.The allied by making a pact with Stalin, Hitler could not prepare for war, but the Western Allied never sent anyone with enough authority to present the deal to Stalin who laughed at them. Instead as time went by he made a pact with Hitler. Now nothing could stop Hitler.

It is quite "interesting" to see how Hitler was given his chance to prepare for war. No one really did anything to stop him, even if he threatened with immediate war if he did not get what he wanted, so no wonder war "finally" started in Sept 1939. So many chances to stop war and none taken.

__________________

Thank you all for the Birthday greetings!

And Za the rats...Priceless.

__________________
'We march. The enemy is retreating in transport. We follow on foot.' Lt.Neil McCallum 5/7 Gordons 19th November 1942

Yes Jaeger, congrats!!! sorry I'm a bit late hope you had as great time!!!

__________________
The war against Russia will be such that it cannot be conducted in a knightly fashion. This struggle is one of ideologies and racial differences and will have to be conducted with unprecedented, unmerciful and unrelenting harshness. -Adolf Hitler

Seconded Jeager, Happy (belated) Birthday!

The conga rats are great Za, I just dropped this into the "Jigs" section of the WWII Forums Web Gallery.

__________________

WWII Forums Rogues Gallery - send in your photo!
Comments, questions or feedback? Contact me at

"The only good is knowledge and the only evil is ignorance." Socrates

Holy schmoly, even the forum owner is threadjacking

__________________
Everly Brothers - What I Have To Do Is Dream
"Never wrestle with pigs, you both end up getting dirty and the pig likes it."

The trouble is that Hitler wasn't clearly the evil man we all know now. in 1938 Hitler was seen as quite a succesful ruler who had united Germany and brought them out of the depression far ahead of the rest of Europe. And with the Sudeten question, many thought he had a legitimate case as the Sudetenland was overwhelmingly German in character and had never wanted to be part of Czechoslovakia. The Allies created this problem by incorporating large German minorities into the new eastern European nations and this gave Hitler a causus belli and justification for his ostpolitik. Hitler seized this opportunity and the Allies couldn't attack Germany in 1938 without appearing as the aggressors themselves, against a Germany that could easily argue it was merely trying to defend fellow Germans. I don't see how the Allies could have stopped Hitler in 1938, before he had attempted to conquer non-German territory. In retrospect, we know that he wanted more, but in 1938 the Allies didn't have the evidence to support a pre-emptive attack.

Agreed, Hitler was closer to being overthrown here than at practically any other point in his rule. However, the Allies weren't in much position to attack Germany, either morally or militarily.

Yep, the Allies really dropped the ball here. By not courting Stalin they let Hitler come to an agreement with him that strengthened them both, at the expense of the Allies. Of course, how would the Allies justify an alliance with Stalin. Even at that point Stalin was well known for his incredibly oppressive regime and mass murder of his own people. If you thought Munich was hard to justify to the British population imagine trying to justify an alliance with Stalin!

The more I learn about history the less I condemn others for their decisions in the past. If you remove our 20/20 vision what other decisions seem superior to the ones actually taken? I think too often we forget that when we look back on WWII we are doing so with knowledge of how the whole war turned out. While we now know what Hitler was capable of, back in 1938 the evidence wasn't so clear cut and he didn't seem as big a threat as he would later on become. The politicians of the 1930s had to proceed on the knowledge that they had, not the knowledge that we now have. There were many chances to stop the war but I don't see that those chances were as obvious as you apparently see them.

Marienburg,

Yes of course hindsight is always easy and often you do have not only more info on the situation on BOTH sides but also you know what happened and where that led.

Somehow though the Czech situation should have been dealt better, just like the Danzig situation. If your guarantees ( the Allied for Czechs ) for political safety turn jokes all the while no wonder Hitler was trying to play the game even further every time. Unfortunately we know Hitler only wanted to start war and looked for a reason wherever he could.

But if you look at the Czech "game" from what was happening:

1. Hitler is threatening with war with the Czechs if the Sudetenland is not given to him
2. Germany moves troops close to border
3. The Czechs mobilize 1 million men in arms
4. The French mobilize
5. The British mobilize, the RN is alarmed and moves ahead.
6. According to Hitler there is some 5 days until war
7. Chamberlain visits Hitler and after getting the requests he returns to Britain
8. Chamberlain revisits Hitler and has the answers, but Hitler has decided he has more requests to be fulfilled and war is imminent
9. Just a day or so until war and Mussolini informs that he suggests a meeting at Munich
10. The meeting in Munich where the Allied makes a pact and "sells" the Sudetenlands for peace.
11. The USSR was not invited (!!)

How much would you trust this Hitler guy in 1938 who sends his troops around , it´s just hours to possible war if he doesn´t get the Sudetenland, the demands are changed ( like he truly wants war ) when you have the answers. Chamberlain was also fully informed by the Oster men what was happening and that they were ready for the coup. Chamberlain for one reason or another would not listen.

__________________

Getting back onto the original thread and not the silly slanging match.

Had Hitler listened to Rundstedt (If Rundstedt) had actually advocated a withdrawal back to Poland then i can see the Soviet Union with Marshal Zukov on the German doorstep 4 years earlier and that the Soviets would overun Germany within 6 months thus ending WWII in mid to late 1942.

I really can't see that as a probable timeline. Germany would have almost certainly lost the war in this scenario but the Soviet Union wasn't the unstoppable behemoth it would be in 1945 back in early 1942 and German industry hadn't yet been bombed to pieces, nor had Germany suffered crippling losses in men by that point either. Germany could have lasted longer than the summer of 1942.

Ok so the German industry was still intact, and yes my timeline was a bit silly, but allowing the Soviets to gain all that territory back without a fight would be disasterous, but having the Soviets back to where they were originally and more determine than ever to resist, regaining back that territory Germany would lose more men a second time around and the war would be shortened by at least two years.

Roddoss, the Soviets still had a lot to learn in war fighting, lessons in errors paid in blood all along 1941 and 1942. They managed to turn the tide in winter 42-43, and even then made and kept making some dreadful mistakes. An early offensive on a German army back to the original border would be a premature catastrophe.

__________________
Everly Brothers - What I Have To Do Is Dream
"Never wrestle with pigs, you both end up getting dirty and the pig likes it."

Yes i agree but i am responding to the question to what would happen if German forces were withdrawn back to the original starting point and then had to relaunch a second invasion to reclaim surrendered territory. And i stand by that had Hitler retreated back to the original jump-off point and relaunched Operation Barbarossa afresh the German Army would be mauled, and yes the Soviet Army did not get its act together until 1943 but that was only after the disaster of Hitlers meddling in the offensive drives and splitting and diverting his forces along the entire front.

Ah ha.... so if German generals were the ones meddeling in the offensive and not Hitler, the Russian's would have lost ?

__________________
The war against Russia will be such that it cannot be conducted in a knightly fashion. This struggle is one of ideologies and racial differences and will have to be conducted with unprecedented, unmerciful and unrelenting harshness. -Adolf Hitler

That is very hard to say, but i do think if Hitler had a hands off approach and allowed his Generals to do what they were trained to do then yes, i believe the Soviets would have certainly have lost the war, but having said that i also believe that there were several worry warts in the German General ranks Rundstedt was one of the worse, it was he that gave the gloomy report that led to the eventual escape of the BEF and the 1st French Army at Dunkerque.

But in the end Hitler ignored Rundtstedt, and that extended the war by at least two years, but in the end Hitler and Hitler alone cost Germany victory, he was the best weapon the Allies had.

How so??



Silly me and here I thought that it was the Russian soldier.

__________________
The war against Russia will be such that it cannot be conducted in a knightly fashion. This struggle is one of ideologies and racial differences and will have to be conducted with unprecedented, unmerciful and unrelenting harshness. -Adolf Hitler