Jump to content
Wednesday, July 12, 2017
  • Welcome to the forum!

    Welcome to the War History Online Community Forum, please register or login to start commenting.

Recommended Posts

The reasons they lost the war:

 

1 They did not just take out Britain after the blitz of France, Belgium etc.  

Yes I am  aware it would still be very difficult for the Nazis to do this.

 

2 Invade Russia without enough materials, Tanks, Guns, men.

 

If they had also gotten Japan to invade Siberia.

Waited  to gather oil from Romania,

Not halt the Strumgewer program

and just more men.

 

Have Japan wait to get the united States in the war.

If Japan would have waited they could very well had a better chance of winning the war.

 

 

Less Submarines more cruisers.  If the Nazis had built more cruisers, battleships.  

 

They could have put more of a strain on the British war effort. 

 


Better anti aircraft guns. 

 

If this was done the Nazi war effort would have been much less effective.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Russia had attacked Finland, Sweden, Latvia, Estonia & Romania & there was no doubt Stalin fully intended to invade Germany too. They had no choice at the time but to take the upper hand. Had Hitler waited for Russia to build up forces and attack first, we would all be speaking Russian today. 

Hitler never had eyes on Britain. The RAF bombed Germany for 3 months before Hitler retaliated with the blitz. Germany believed they could destroy the RAF on the ground so were building Stuka's while we built Spitfires & Hurricanes. Germany had less fighters at the end of the Battle of Britain, but Britain actually had more than we started with. 

It's impossible to say if Germany had done this or if Germany had done that. Had the Poles not committed atrocities against ethnic Germans in Danzig then Hitler wouldn't have invaded Poland to free the oppressed. What if the League of Nations had done it's job & condemned the Polish atrocities? Had France & Belgium not invaded the Ruhr in 1923 leading to hyperinflation the German people would not have turned to national socialism. Had Britain accepted German peace proposals in 1916 the Treaty of Versailles would not have happened. 

How far do you want this to go? The wheels of world war 2 were turning before world war 1 even ended & nazi Germany was never going to win! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
4 hours ago, licinius said:

Russia had attacked Finland, Sweden, Latvia, Estonia & Romania & there was no doubt Stalin fully intended to invade Germany too. They had no choice at the time but to take the upper hand. Had Hitler waited for Russia to build up forces and attack first, we would all be speaking Russian today.

Agreed, except Russians never attacked Sweden. But,

4 hours ago, licinius said:

Had the Poles not committed atrocities against ethnic Germans in Danzig then Hitler wouldn't have invaded Poland to free the oppressed. What if the League of Nations had done it's job & condemned the Polish atrocities? Had France & Belgium not invaded the Ruhr in 1923 leading to hyperinflation the German people would not have turned to national socialism. Had Britain accepted German peace proposals in 1916 the Treaty of Versailles would not have happened.

are you like reciting Mein Kampf to explain why Hitler was justified in what he did? 

Also,

4 hours ago, licinius said:

Germany believed they could destroy the RAF on the ground so were building Stuka's while we built Spitfires & Hurricanes.

Stuka was designed for tactical bombing and naturally proved to be ineffective during Blitz, which was a strategic bombing campaign.

Edited by George Collins

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, George Collins said:

are you like reciting Mein Kampf to explain why Hitler was justified in what he did? 

Justified is a very strong word. Was Hitler justified to invade Poland as a whole because of what was going on in Danzig? Certainly not! Was military force the only option available to save the Germans in Danzig? Yes I think so. What I can't understand is why we sided with Poland when they were guilty of such atrocities and made no secret of them.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, licinius said:

What I can't understand is why we sided with Poland when they were guilty of such atrocities and made no secret of them.  

The issue was the entire Versailles order in Europe. Stalin and Hitler pretty much conspired to dismantle it - for different reasons; the Western powers tried to preserve it. So, if the war had not broken out over Czechoslovakia, it would over Poland. That's what Chamberlain did not grasp.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Im not including things like this as they did not have the biggest impacts on the war. Yes I know that some of them did cause ww2 but I am only including the time period 1938-1945.  These are some reasons why they lost the war. I know japan invading the soviet union was impractical but just wanted to throw it in there. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Versailles meant world war 2 was 99% guaranteed. Hitler demanded self-determination for all Germans in Austria and Czechoslovakia, voters in the Sudetenland were overwhelmingly pro nazi party. Self determination is a key part of the United Nations today so we cannot argue the request was unreasonable & therefore the German invasion of Czechoslovakia was not grounds for war. Poland was killing ethnic German civilians in Danzig and Hitler had to act. He wanted the city back with a corridor linking it to Germany again. Considering what was happening in Danzig at the time I'd agree that this was a great way of saving innocent civilians & a good compromise to avoid war.  

War with Germany was avoidable, Germany had no territorial goals in the west. It was Britain & France that took the war to Germany. In order to avoid a 2 fronted war Hitler had to deal with France before concentrating on the inevitable war with Russia. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, licinius said:

Versailles meant world war 2 was 99% guaranteed. Hitler demanded self-determination for all Germans in Austria and Czechoslovakia, voters in the Sudetenland were overwhelmingly pro nazi party.

Yes, this is the narrative popularized by Hitler himself in his multi-page rant titled Mein Kampf. However, it was the Bolsheviks - particularly Lenin - who declared war against Versailles order no later than in 1920 (Lenin is on record making a speech about it that year). That, of course, predates Hitler's rise to power by a long time. 

Edited by George Collins

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also if the Axis waited till 1942-43 to invade the soviet union they would have had a much better chance. The Russians in my oppiouin would have waited till at least 1952 to invade Gearmen Poland and Germany. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

( sorry that post was a follow up )  But yes the  treaty guaranteed  . And the reason the voters in the Sudetenland was because it was a ethnic German land.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, Nameless556 said:

Also if the Axis waited till 1942-43 to invade the soviet union they would have had a much better chance. The Russians in my oppiouin would have waited till at least 1952 to invade Gearmen Poland and Germany. 

I don't think so. In June 1941, RKKA was already in the midst of deploying 5 million troops supported by over 8 thousand warplanes, almost 20 thousand tanks and countless amounts of artillery pieces and ammo along the demarcation line separating the Soviets and the Germans. It was simply impossible to maintain a force like that in stand-by mode for a long period of time.     

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, George Collins said:

this is the narrative popularized by Hitler himself in his multi-page rant titled Mein Kampf

I've never actually read Mein Kampf though I should. Hitler ranted about everything but on this issue he was correct. Unfortunately our main concern was stopping Germany from becoming the economic powerhouse that it is today 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, licinius said:

 Hitler ranted about everything but on this issue he was correct. 

So, you would be ok with Germany occupying the whole of Czechoslovakia and West Poland? I suppose, in your mind, Chamberlain made just one big mistake, and it was declaring war on Hitler.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, licinius said:

I've never actually read Mein Kampf though I should. Hitler ranted about everything but on this issue he was correct. Unfortunately our main concern was stopping Germany from becoming the economic powerhouse that it is today 

It's heavy going, believe me.

Would you elucidate: on what issue was Hitler correct ?

(I'll also take issue you about the Treaties (plural) of Versailles, when time permits, Suffice to say that the latest thinking regarding these treaties is that they did NOT lead to WW2).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, George Collins said:

So, you would be ok with Germany occupying the whole of Czechoslovakia and West Poland? I suppose, in your mind, Chamberlain made just one big mistake, and it was declaring war on Hitler.  

I'll treat that comment with the contempt it deserves. You rant like a 1930's German politician 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Philip Whitehouse said:

It's heavy going, believe me.

Would you elucidate: on what issue was Hitler correct ?

(I'll also take issue you about the Treaties (plural) of Versailles, when time permits, Suffice to say that the latest thinking regarding these treaties is that they did NOT lead to WW2).

The people of both Sudeten and Danzig were and wanted to be German. The right of people to self-determination is a cardinal principle and was encouraged by both Vladimir Lenin and Woodrow Wilson during WW1. It cannot be argued therefore that Hitler was wrong to bring these regions under German control. It was Versailles that caused this problem so people are in denial if they choose to believe there is no connection between the two. 

I'm interested to know what other options were available to Hitler when Poland was slaughtering ethnic Germans in Danzig? The league of Nations did nothing. Why did Britain go to the aid of a country that was committing such atrocities? Let's not forget Poland had expansion plans of her own, invading the Soviet Union in 1919 & even drawing up maps with a border that expanded west to Berlin! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, licinius said:

The people of both Sudeten and Danzig were and wanted to be German. The right of people to self-determination is a cardinal principle and was encouraged by both Vladimir Lenin and Woodrow Wilson during WW1. It cannot be argued therefore that Hitler was wrong to bring these regions under German control. It was Versailles that caused this problem so people are in denial if they choose to believe there is no connection between the two. 

I'm interested to know what other options were available to Hitler when Poland was slaughtering ethnic Germans in Danzig? The league of Nations did nothing. Why did Britain go to the aid of a country that was committing such atrocities? Let's not forget Poland had expansion plans of her own, invading the Soviet Union in 1919 & even drawing up maps with a border that expanded west to Berlin! 

Self-Determination ?

Well, Lenin gave it lip-service certainly, but he didn't really believe it, being more concerned with uniting the Workers-of-the-World,than with enthnicity.   Wilson originally thought it a good idea: his "fourteen points" was based on this premise. But when confronted with reality he had to back-down. In 1919,Wilson told Congress, "When I gave utterance to those words ('that all nations had the right of self-determination') I said that without the knowledge that nationalities existed,which are coming to us day after day". What Wilson had come to realise was that  history had left central Europe with a rich mix of religions, languages and culture. About half the people (according to historian Margaret MacMillan) living there could be counted as belonging to one national minority or another. For example,there were German-speaking minorites scattered throughout Europe.

The delegates at Versailles, did the best they could-in line with the original Wilsonian docrine- but there was no way that everybody could be satisfied.

I don't know about the Poles "'slaughtering ethnic Germans in Danzig": I would have thought that the boot was very much on the other foot.  Were there Polish Concentration Camps  established on German territory then ?

Why did Britain declare War following the invasion of Poland ? Because there had to be a line drawn in the sand somwhere. Certainly after Hitler repudiated the Munich Agreement and marched into Prague:- totally violating any notions about "self-determination".by the way,then war became sadly inevitable.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Philip Whitehouse said:

Self-Determination ?

Well, Lenin gave it lip-service certainly, but he didn't really believe it, being more concerned with uniting the Workers-of-the-World,than with enthnicity.   Wilson originally thought it a good idea: his "fourteen points" was based on this premise. But when confronted with reality he had to back-down. In 1919,Wilson told Congress, "When I gave utterance to those words ('that all nations had the right of self-determination') I said that without the knowledge that nationalities existed,which are coming to us day after day". What Wilson had come to realise was that  history had left central Europe with a rich mix of religions, languages and culture. About half the people (according to historian Margaret MacMillan) living there could be counted as belonging to one national minority or another. For example,there were German-speaking minorites scattered throughout Europe.

The delegates at Versailles, did the best they could-in line with the original Wilsonian docrine- but there was no way that everybody could be satisfied.

I don't know about the Poles "'slaughtering ethnic Germans in Danzig": I would have thought that the boot was very much on the other foot.  Were there Polish Concentration Camps  established on German territory then ?

Why did Britain declare War following the invasion of Poland ? Because there had to be a line drawn in the sand somwhere. Certainly after Hitler repudiated the Munich Agreement and marched into Prague:- totally violating any notions about "self-determination".by the way,then war became sadly inevitable.

 

I never met Lenin so I can't say what he did or did not believe. You try to talk down self determination but that is why Gibraltar remains British today. If you don't know about the Polish slaughter of Ethnic Germans in Danzig then you really have no right discussing the start of WW2, that is why Hitler invaded Poland. Is it any wonder Germany took retribution against the Poles after these atrocities? We only went to war with Germany because she was a rising economic powerhouse & we wanted to prevent Germany becoming as strong as she is today. Hitler only invaded France AFTER France declared war. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, licinius said:

I'll treat that comment with the contempt it deserves. You rant like a 1930's German politician 

Why? YOU stated 

On 5/31/2018 at 12:13 PM, licinius said:

we cannot argue the request was unreasonable & therefore the German invasion of Czechoslovakia was not grounds for war. Poland was killing ethnic German civilians in Danzig and Hitler had to act. He wanted the city back with a corridor linking it to Germany again. Considering what was happening in Danzig at the time I'd agree that this was a great way of saving innocent civilians & a good compromise to avoid war. 

- which is a step further than the position taken by Chamberlain, who for all practical purposes ignored the occupation of Czechoslovakia, but declared war on Hitler on the third day of the invasion of Poland. I don't see how my characterization of your quote above is not a perfectly reasonable inference. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, licinius said:

I never met Lenin so I can't say what he did or did not believe. 

One can draw reasonable conclusions about what Lenin believed from the multitude of his writings and speeches. What Phillip is referring to is Lenin's doctrine that he articulated particularly in his work titled he Military Programme of the Proletarian Revolution.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, George Collins said:

 "So, you would be ok with Germany occupying the whole of Czechoslovakia and West Poland?" 

I don't see how my characterization of your quote above is not a perfectly reasonable inference.

 

At what stage have I said the occupation of Czechoslovakia or Poland was in anyway right?? All I've done is highlight gaping gaps in history that you choose to ignore. The lecture of Lenin above was purely an attempt to discredit self-determination even though we live by that principle today. 

Allow me to repeat my questions (see if you can absorb them this time). In light of the Polish atrocities against ethnic Germans in Danzig & the lack of action by the League of Nations. Was there any other course of action available to Hitler? How was he supposed to protect German civilians (including women & children) without the use of military force? 

Why did we go to the aid of Poland, when they were committing atrocities against civilians? Effectively taking sides with a playground bully that has just been slapped back! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
24 minutes ago, licinius said:

At what stage have I said the occupation of Czechoslovakia or Poland was in anyway right?? All I've done is highlight gaping gaps in history that you choose to ignore.

With all due respect, claiming moral high ground while appeasing and/or justifying aggression is the definition of hypocrisy. Especially when you go to some length conflating Sudetenland with the whole of Czechoslovakia in your "self-determination" justification. Or is justification a too strong a word? How appalling of me! And what gaps in history I'm ignoring exactly? For example, I've read more of Lenin's writings than you ever will - that's pretty damn sure. It looks the other way around to me - like you're conflating Sudetenland and the whole of Czechoslovakia in the said example.

 

24 minutes ago, licinius said:

Allow me to repeat my questions (see if you can absorb them this time). In light of the Polish atrocities against ethnic Germans in Danzig & the lack of action by the League of Nations. Was there any other course of action available to Hitler? How was he supposed to protect German civilians (including women & children) without the use of military force?  Why did we go to the aid of Poland, when they were committing atrocities against civilians? Effectively taking sides with a playground bully that has just been slapped back! 

 Allow me to repeat that what you wrote here is a flaming justification for Hitler's invasion of Poland. That's how any reasonable person would interpret what you just wrote. I don't see any need to go any further discussing this with you - it's quite transparent.

Edited by George Collins

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, George Collins said:

Allow me to repeat that what you wrote here is a flaming justification for Hitler's invasion of Poland. That's how any reasonable person would interpret what you just wrote. I don't see any need to go any further discussing this with you - it's quite transparent.

Some years ago, and on another forum, we had a member who had, so  it seemed, watched a TV documentary about Ant-submarine warfare during WW1, using airships as aircraft carriers. Somehow, in his mind, this (unusual almost to the point of becoming mythical occurrence) became THE single most important aspect of the war against UBoats, and he would not have it any other way. Something may be true, or untrue, and thhat truth (or lie) may be important, or trivial. I'd not heard of Polish atrocities against the German minority; there still IS a "German speaking" minority, although what they speak is PlattDeutsch (similar to the dialect spoken near Hamburg, and not dissimiar to Dutch). The bar opposite the hotel in which I spent my last stay in Gdansk is a centre for speakers of the language and its cuisine. I was intrigued: I fancy myself as well-informed on most matters related to WW2, so I researched. (Well... "Googled") the issue. I fairly quickly came across a website which is in total agreement with "licinius" (one of VERY few)...
(http://www.jrbooksonline.com/polish_atrocities.htm)
Which continues, after praising Hitler uncritically, to deny the existence of the Holocaust, and to attack Israel. It overlooks  Hitler's doctrine that if you tell a lie often enough, people WILL start to believe it. There seems to be a general consensus on the links I found that these PRE-INVASION anti-German attrocities ALL trace back to German claims made in 1940-41'ish, that are "strong on outrage, but weak on actual FACTS", and appear to be little more than typical Nazi propaganda: examples of "the BIG LIE" in practice. Yes, AFTER Germany invaded, there WAS a massacre of hundreds of Ethnic Germans, but (As, to some degree with th Sudeten Germans of Czechoslovakia) their status as "civilians" is questionable; someone whose loyalty is to a foreign power, for whom they gather intelligence is, strictly speaking a spy, rater than a true civilian. I'm also aware of the existence of the "Brandenburgers", a largely ignored/forgotten German special forces unit that was especially trained for "Black flag" operations, and as "agents provocateurs". As a schoolboy, I read a battered copy of a book about the Brandenburgers several times - alledgedly the autobiography of one ot their founding members. Alas, I cannot recall either his name or the title.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, George Collins said:

With all due respect, claiming moral high ground while appeasing and/or justifying aggression is the definition of hypocrisy. Especially when you go to some length conflating Sudetenland with the whole of Czechoslovakia in your "self-determination" justification. Or is justification a too strong a word? How appalling of me! And what gaps in history I'm ignoring exactly? For example, I've read more of Lenin's writings than you ever will - that's pretty damn sure. It looks the other way around to me - like you're conflating Sudetenland and the whole of Czechoslovakia in the said example.

 

 Allow me to repeat that what you wrote here is a flaming justification for Hitler's invasion of Poland. That's how any reasonable person would interpret what you just wrote. I don't see any need to go any further discussing this with you - it's quite transparent.

I do not combine Sudeten with the whole of Czechoslovakia, I thought I had made that clear in my above post "At what stage have I said the occupation of Czechoslovakia or Poland was in anyway right??" but you struggle to comprehend that. You rant on about Lenin, though I don't know why??? 

 

I asked you a question which you don't like (along with the other gaps in your history). Here it is for a 3rd time. In light of the Polish atrocities against ethnic Germans in Danzig & the lack of action by the League of Nations. Was there any other course of action available to Hitler? How was he supposed to protect German civilians (including women & children) without the use of military force? 

Please don't mention Lenin, please don't accuse me of justifying the invasion of anywhere just answer the above question. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that ought to be "ALLEGED Polish atrocities against ethnic Germans in Danzig". Until you're able to produce evidence from sources OTHER than Nazi Germany, I'm going to remain sceptical of your claim that they existed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Similar Content

    • By Stephen N Russell
      Anyone work, service, test fly, these planes:?
      B19, B32, B40, Rainbow 12, XP67, Skystreak, B54
    • By Rex
      Other than the markings stating it is a no4 mk II bayonet what do the other 2 little imprints mean?          
       
      The B symbol in between the K and II?
       
      the little curve with a kind of hook on the right end above the O? - marking or scratch?
      And lastly, overall value of the bayonet? I have a cover stamped, 1944 mk1 aswell.
       
      thanks

       
       

    • By Stephen N Russell
      Checked online  & seen  nothing about U Boats hiding along riverways in Brazil, Venezula, Ecuador from Allied patrols in So Atlantic.
      Media model: Murphys War, 1971.( On DVD). Peter O Toole, best  role since Lawrence Arabia.
      From novel, written.
      Anyone who served in Merchent Marine or RN, USN hear of U Boats hiding in riverways after damage etc??
      Or  Hollywood fiction.
       
       
       
       
    • By Stephen N Russell
      Wkipediaied  the Ploesti Raid & one thing stands  out:
      No Intel from any if partisan units to the Allies on German AA defenses etc.
      or did I miss  something.
      Or was area under total Nazi control & no gueriila efforts in area during raid.
       
       
    • By Stephen N Russell
      Just read on WH about an average German who knew  of the Nazi atrocities being done.
      & feel for those Germans when they knew of the Jews being sent East & concentration camps being erected to send them  to the Death camps.
      & if any Germans living in Poland after 1939 noticed the ash from cremation of the Jews in the said Death Camps??
      Opens up a whole  new  yarn to German knowledge  of Nazi crimes.
      To run Poland etc they had to have employees run said cities etc thus average Germans in Poland would know about death camps, or how could use explain ash??
      Am I right or was Poland under total Military control& No civilian Germans came to aid running  of Govt.??
       
       


×