 |
| |
|
|
Dr Strangelove
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ned
Dr. Strangelove, true. Just because Hitler was trying to restore the East Frankish Kingdom, HRE or whatever, doesn't mean he had a right to do so. I think the Wilsonian principles of "self determination" should have allowed Czechoslovakia to remain independent. But, when it came to Danzig and the Corridor, I think Germany had the better argument. |
The population of the corridor was predominantly Polish, so the Poles had as much right to it as the Czechs to their independenc. quote:
Now, regardless of the merits of Hitler's claims, what god given right did Britain have to tell Germany what lands could be or could not be part of the Reich? Everyone continues to focus on Germany and whether it was right in its claims or not. No one seems to care whether Britain's interference in Germany's affairs was legitimate. Without that interference, there would have been no world war. |
The British didn't tell him he couldn't have Danzig or the corridor, after all they encouraged the Poles to go to the negotiating table. They simply told Hitler that they would support the Poles if he attacked.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
BlackCat
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ned
No, not at all. The major lesson we learned from WWII is not to take revenge on the defeated, but to convert enemies into friends.
|
Then why mention the maps ? even post them ?
quote:
As to the Roman Empire, the new European state is, in large, an attempt at its restoration in Europe. It will be interesting to see whether Britain cooperates this time. |
I am not a historian, but unless I'm very wrong, you have to go many centuries back in time to find an example of britain doing something that looked like conquest in continental europe. Quite contrary, they have been busy fighting people like Napoleon and hitler in their attept to build empires based on violent conquest.
EU has nothing to do with with the roman empire. EU is a community of individual countries that work together including countries that never was even close to becoming a part of the real roman empire.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
BlackCat
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ned
Also, the point about 1390 is an attempt to understand what Hitler was saying. He referred to an ancient Reich in his speech. He also referred to Nazi Germany not as Germany but as the Third Reich. This clearly is a reference to a First Reich, and that must have been the East Frankish Kingdom, its predecessor and successor states. If this is correct, then one only had to look at a map of that "state" to judge Hitler's plans on reunification. This sets aside the issue of right and wrong, because that depends upon your point of view.
|
The map is from 1360 unless you have fiddled with it.
Really, what does it matter what "reich" hitler thought about ? An almost 600 year old map of an ancient empire does in no way legitimate what he did.
quote:
I only wish I knew more about what was being said in the British press during that era as I have a hard time understanding why the British people would support another major European war over the Corridor and Danzig. |
If hitler really just wanted that corridor, then why did he attack poland in cooperation with Soviet ? If that was the only thing he wanted he could without problem has taken it and defended it.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
molly bloom
|
 |
Lundenwic
Oct 2001
time: 15:31
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ned
Well, we seem to agree that Bohemia and Moravia had long been part of the East Frankish Kingdom, aka, Kingdom of Germany, aka, HRE, aka, the First Reich even though they themselves were not German. Even as you said in your first post on this topic, the HRE was not a German Empire. It was however, an Empire or Kingdom that was primarily German.
|
Still irrelevant.
You'll note that at the end of the Seven Weeks' War when Brandenburg-Prussia had decisively defeated its German opponents and Austria-Hungary, it didn't snatch or reoccupy what you perceive to be the intrinsically 'German' territories of Bohemia and Moravia- in fact, they stayed outside of the so-called Second Reich, and within the frontiers of another sovereign Empire- the Austro-Hungarian Empire. Perhaps that was because of the personal association of the crowns of those kingdoms with the Habsburg Dynasty, d'ya thunk ?
Your anti-British sentiments are of long standing- I fail to see how you can possibly grumble about the outcome of the Treaty of Versailles and the Paris Peace Conference and ignore the various campaigns by Brandenburg-Prussia to enlarge itself, and the humiliating treaty they imposed on the French at the end of the Franco-Prussian War. Or the manufactured war against the Danes. Or the cynical grabbing of Silesia by Frederick the Great.
Could it be because it might have revealed a pattern ?
Had your anti-British blinkers not blinded you, you would have noticed that after Kaiser Wilhelm dropped his pilot, Bismarck, the disturbed ruler then went about getting involved in matters that by no stretch of the imagination concerned Germany- Franco-British relations in North Africa and Egypt and Sudan, for instance. Perhaps Hitler was learning his lessons from that gentleman's 'diplomacy' or lack of it...
And then of course, you don't even bother to address the activities of German armed forces in the Spanish Civil War- a good try out for their blitzkrieg offensives, and a lesson in the efficacy of aerial bombardment of civilian non-military targets, which they went on to repeat in Rotterdam and Warsaw (and with which they also threatened Prague, too).
And as for those broken guarantees, international treaties and interference in the internal affairs of sovereign nations- you blithely ignore them in favour of finger-pointing at Lloyd George and Great Britain. No mention of the American Woodrow Wilson, and his part in the decision making.
No mention of German Romanticism, of the Austrian Hitler's personal philosophy and of its inherent lack of grounding in reality.
It's true then- one can lead a horse to water, but one cannot make it think.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ned
|
 |
of Aptos, CA
Oct 1999
time: 21:31
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by BlackCat
I am not a historian, but unless I'm very wrong, you have to go many centuries back in time to find an example of britain doing something that looked like conquest in continental europe. Quite contrary, they have been busy fighting people like Napoleon and hitler in their attept to build empires based on violent conquest.
|
BlackCat, well it does look like you are coming around. Britain has actively opposed the current great continental power over the centuries as a matter of essential self defense. Nazi Germany was just one more example. What the did in laying down a marker on Poland had nothing to do with Poland. It had everything to do with Britain.
Which gets me back to my first point. Hitler did not believe Britain would declare war because he believed they had no means to protect Poland. What he failed to understand was that Britain had a problem with the growing power of Germany, per se, and would act at the first pretext to declare war to persue its long standing policy of balance of power on the continent as a matter of self defense.
This failure to understand Britain was his first mistake, and the greatest mistake he made as it eventually lead to the end of the Third Reich.
Last edited by Ned on 19-04-2005 at 23:14
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Lancer
|
|
Oregon Coast, USA! or Bohol, Philippines!
Apr 1999
time: 05:31
|
|
"after Kaiser Wilhelm dropped his pilot, Bismarck, the disturbed ruler then went about getting involved in matters that by no stretch of the imagination concerned Germany- Franco-British relations in North Africa and Egypt and Sudan, for instance. Perhaps Hitler was learning his lessons from that gentleman's 'diplomacy' or lack of it..."
Kaiser Willhelm did all he could to turn the Brits into enemies. Also Bismark, iirc, turned away the Brits who were in search of an alliance to join in favor of the Russians. Though I think Bismark was great and all that, this one blunder cost Germany dearly later. Bismark went with Russia instead in order to isolate France. That wasn't good because of the problems Austria Hungary had with Russia. Russia being Germany's ally meant that niether GB or Austria Hungary could be. So later to keep Austria Hungary, Russia was ditched and the Italians picked up because GB was now on the other side having mended fences with France.
Essentially, iirc, Bismark and the anti British Kaiser Willhelm traded GB for Russia and ended up with Italy.
...until the war started. 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ned
|
|
of Aptos, CA
Oct 1999
time: 21:31
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Lancer
"after Kaiser Wilhelm dropped his pilot, Bismarck, the disturbed ruler then went about getting involved in matters that by no stretch of the imagination concerned Germany- Franco-British relations in North Africa and Egypt and Sudan, for instance. Perhaps Hitler was learning his lessons from that gentleman's 'diplomacy' or lack of it..."
Kaiser Willhelm did all he could to turn the Brits into enemies. Also Bismark, iirc, turned away the Brits who were in search of an alliance to join in favor of the Russians. Though I think Bismark was great and all that, this one blunder cost Germany dearly later. Bismark went with Russia instead in order to isolate France. That wasn't good because of the problems Austria Hungary had with Russia. Russia being Germany's ally meant that niether GB or Austria Hungary could be. So later to keep Austria Hungary, Russia was ditched and the Italians picked up because GB was now on the other side having mended fences with France.
Essentially, iirc, Bismark and the anti British Kaiser Willhelm traded GB for Russia and ended up with Italy.
...until the war started. |
Excellent post. It appears that underestimating the Brits is a congenital German problem.
One wonders though if the Germans could have moved the balance of power in their favor by forming an alliance with America instead of letting the Brits bury a century-old antagonism and form the alliance with her old colony?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dr Strangelove
|
|
American troops played a minor role in the defense of France during the German Spring Offensive of 1918. Probably the British and French would have managed to stop the German advance on their own. I suspect the effort to push the Germans back would have been much slower. Without the Americans the British and French would have had fewer troops to send to Italy and the Balkans. The Ottoman empire would have probably withdrawn from the war. By 1918 the Brits had pretty much pushed them back to nearly their current borders. Since this is precisely what the nationalists under Attaturk wanted the mutiny which forced the surrender of Turkey probably would have occurred anyway.
I don't know if Austro-Hungary would have disintegrated without Franco-British troops being sent to the Italian and Salonika fronts in sufficient numbers to overwhelm their defensive lines. IIRC dissent in Viennna had built up to the point that the collapse of the government was imminent even before the Allied troops began streaming into occupied Serbia, so even without American intervention Austro-Hungary might have been knocked out of the war in late 1918 anyway.
While it's true that German defeats in the west influenced the war leaders in Berlin it's also true that Germany was starving in the fall of 1918. Mutinies and riots broke out in several German cities. Troops had to be recalled from the front to re-establish order. Had the German leadership been deluded enough to cling to the hopes of victory they might have wound up in the same plight as the czar.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Lancer
|
|
Oregon Coast, USA! or Bohol, Philippines!
Apr 1999
time: 05:31
|
|
"One wonders though if the Germans could have moved the balance of power in their favor by forming an alliance with America instead of letting the Brits bury a century-old antagonism and form the alliance with her old colony?"-Ned
Imo America was too isolationist before the war and Germany was inevitably forced into unrestricted submarine warfare during the war, which pretty much precludes any alliance with America and makes our war with Germany almost inevitable.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:31.
Apolyton Time is 00:31. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
19-04-2005 02:47
|