 |
|
Dr Strangelove
|
|
Wasn't that the same day that Germany declared war on Poland after its troops had already entered Poland?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dr Strangelove
|
|
Actually, getting back to the original topic I'd go along with the guy who said not being prepared to equip the Operation Barbarossa troops with winter suits as the biggest mistake the axis made. I'd add to that not providing for the winterization of their equipment. The Wehrmacht lost more troops and equipment to the ravages of the winter of 1941-42 than it had during the fighting of the summer and fall. If they had had those troops and that equipment available in the spring of 1942 they might have indeed prevailed over the Soviet Union.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ned
|
 |
of Aptos, CA
Oct 1999
time: 21:31
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
Wasn't that the same day that Germany declared war on Poland after its troops had already entered Poland? |
The Brits signed a formal alliances with the Poles on August 26 and privately urged the Poles to not negotiate with Hitler. Hitler, in turn, gave the Poles one last ultimatum, show up for negotiations or else. They didn't show up, so Germany invaded on September 1 under the pretext of rescuing Germans from abuse by the Poles, but really to restore German territory lost after WWI.
The Brits issues an ultimatum, withdraw or we will declare war. The Germans did not withdraw, and the Brits announced they were at war with Germany two days later.
Now, given this song and dance, who caused the breakout of hostilities between Britain and Germany?
In a similar context, Roosevelt had authorized American warships to attack German U-boats on sight before Germany declared war. Who started the war between US and Germany?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Kalius
|
 |
Kriegsgewitter
Aug 2002
time: 16:31
|
|
I think the biggest mistake was trying to blitzkreig accross Russia. Sure, it worked in France, but that's a relatively flat terrain with a small area. Russia is absolutely massive and it's very hilly, and very muddy in places too. Sure, they got to the gates of Moscow by November, but their supply lines weren't ready for the cold, their infantry hadn't caught up, so basically you have a division of tanks and Stukas at Moscow, but that won't capture you a city regardless of the climate. Terrorise, sure, but you won't hold it for long.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
BlackCat
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
Actually, getting back to the original topic I'd go along with the guy who said not being prepared to equip the Operation Barbarossa troops with winter suits as the biggest mistake the axis made. I'd add to that not providing for the winterization of their equipment. The Wehrmacht lost more troops and equipment to the ravages of the winter of 1941-42 than it had during the fighting of the summer and fall. If they had had those troops and that equipment available in the spring of 1942 they might have indeed prevailed over the Soviet Union. |
The worst case of "bad equipment" was hobnailed(?) boots that fit the feet. The first making thermal bridges and the latter not allowing to put some isolation in them. My personal experience are that as long as my feet are warm, the temperature doesn't matter that much, but if they get cold I quickly get miserable and incapable.
Another big mistake was that they weren't allowed to retreat to better defendable places. The generals "on site" wanted to do that but Hitler wouldn't allow it.
Firing/degrading etc of Brauchitsch, Guderian, Rundstedt, Bock, Hoepner, Sponeck and others didn't make things better.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
BlackCat
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Patroklos
I a sure if Germany was not at war with the Soviets it could still have revailed against Britain and America.
At the very least they would have kept their Western European conquests. With the whole Wehrmacht on the Western wall, there is no scenario where the USA/Britian could successfully invade. |
Actually, no. That would have been the worst scenario. The A-bomb would have made that a disasterous way (agree, noone could have foreseen that).
The problem with Barbarossa was that they go "one bridge too far", but luckily there was a maniac in Berlin that thought he knew better. If the german troops had made secured lines, maybe retreating from conquered areas, they could easily have defended with few losses and at the same time build up for a new offensive. This second attack should have been targeted at blocking Murmansk and other northern harbours and getting to the Ural.
Blocking the northern harbours would have freed a lot of subs that then could have been reallocated to the british isles thereby increasing the pressure on England. Weak as UK was at that point, they may have collapsed and accepted peace.
Reaching the Ural was in fact more important than taking cities like Moscow, Leningrad and stalingrad. If that goal was reached, russian units would have been sitting ducks trying to get past Ural.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dr Strangelove
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ned
The Brits signed a formal alliances with the Poles on August 26 and privately urged the Poles to not negotiate with Hitler. Hitler, in turn, gave the Poles one last ultimatum, show up for negotiations or else. They didn't show up, so Germany invaded on September 1 under the pretext of rescuing Germans from abuse by the Poles, but really to restore German territory lost after WWI.
The Brits issues an ultimatum, withdraw or we will declare war. The Germans did not withdraw, and the Brits announced they were at war with Germany two days later.
Now, given this song and dance, who caused the breakout of hostilities between Britain and Germany?
In a similar context, Roosevelt had authorized American warships to attack German U-boats on sight before Germany declared war. Who started the war between US and Germany? |
IIRC the Germans staged fake attacks upon their own territory as a pretext for declaring war on Poland. They shot some of their own prisoners and dressed them in fake Polish uniforms, then put the bodies on display as proof that the Poles attacked first. The logical conclusion would be that the German's started the war. All Britain is guilty of is wanting to avoid another "Munich" fiasco in which the object of Hitler's greed concedes a little and then winds up completely engulfed.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ned
|
|
of Aptos, CA
Oct 1999
time: 21:31
|
|
Dr. Strangelove, you have to understand that almost all Germans wanted to undo Versailles. This was not just an example of one megalomaniac invading an neighboring country for reason at all.
A lot of the cause for the outbreak of hostilities had rather to do with the internal politics of Britain at the time. Chamberlain had returned from Munich with Hitler's guarantee that Germany would have no more territorial demands. But, we all know what happened next. Hitler took the whole (the Poles took some) of Czechoslovakia (part of the Austro-Hungarian Empire), and then began making demands about Danzig and the Polish Corridor. This humiliated Chamberlain, forcing him to become aggressive with Germany. Had he not done so, I think he would have faced a vote of no confidence.
The Brits clearly drew a line in the sand over Poland and Hitler crossed it. IIRC, I think Hitler still believed that Chamberlain would do nothing as he thought he had the "measure" of the man.
Now, the question is, who started WWII? Had not the Brits formed their last minute alliance with Poland and told them not to negotiate, it is more than likely that the territorial readjustments would have taken place without a shot being fired. So the outbreak of war rests as much with the Brits as it does with the Germans, if not more so.
It is notable that the Pope urged a negotiated settlement in August. The Brits not only ignored this, but torpedoed Germany's last minute efforts at diplomacy.
After Poland had fallen to the combined arms of German and the USSR, Hitler sought an end to war. So did the Vatican. But the war continued because the Brits still would not negotiate. They were fully backed at this time by FDR.
I haven't research this in any detail, but I would guess that Hitler would have allowed Poland to go free in order to obtain peace, but would have retain former German lands.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Dr Strangelove
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ned
Dr. Strangelove, you have to understand that almost all Germans wanted to undo Versailles. This was not just an example of one megalomaniac invading an neighboring country for reason at all.
A lot of the cause for the outbreak of hostilities had rather to do with the internal politics of Britain at the time. Chamberlain had returned from Munich with Hitler's guarantee that Germany would have no more territorial demands. But, we all know what happened next. Hitler took the whole (the Poles took some) of Czechoslovakia (part of the Austro-Hungarian Empire), and then began making demands about Danzig and the Polish Corridor. This humiliated Chamberlain, forcing him to become aggressive with Germany. Had he not done so, I think he would have faced a vote of no confidence.
The Brits clearly drew a line in the sand over Poland and Hitler crossed it. IIRC, I think Hitler still believed that Chamberlain would do nothing as he thought he had the "measure" of the man.
Now, the question is, who started WWII? Had not the Brits formed their last minute alliance with Poland and told them not to negotiate, it is more than likely that the territorial readjustments would have taken place without a shot being fired. So the outbreak of war rests as much with the Brits as it does with the Germans, if not more so.
It is notable that the Pope urged a negotiated settlement in August. The Brits not only ignored this, but torpedoed Germany's last minute efforts at diplomacy.
After Poland had fallen to the combined arms of German and the USSR, Hitler sought an end to war. So did the Vatican. But the war continued because the Brits still would not negotiate. They were fully backed at this time by FDR.
I haven't research this in any detail, but I would guess that Hitler would have allowed Poland to go free in order to obtain peace, but would have retain former German lands. |
Did Hitler stop at taking just former German land when he annexed not only the Sudetenland, but also the rest of Czechoslovakia? No he did not! Germany never owned Bohemia or Slovakia. For that matter Germany never owned the Sudetenland. Germany's claim on the Sudetenland stemmed not from historical claims of ownership, but from demographics. Posnan and western Prussia had been Polish before they were German, and the peoples inhabiting those lands in the early 29th century were Polish. Why should they not have the same rights as the Sudetenland Germans? Come to think of it why shouldn't the slavic Czechs and Slovaks? The British refused to negotiate with the Germans because they saw no end ot his aggression. History proved them right. Remember that after Hitler finished France he turned on Yugoslavia and Greece, and finally he turned on the Soviet Union. Face it Hitler was acting out the grandiose dreams laid out in Mein Kampf. He wasn't interested in peace except as a weapon in adjunct to his war to subdue "non-aryan" humanity.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
molly bloom
|
 |
Lundenwic
Oct 2001
time: 15:31
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ned
Now, given this song and dance, who caused the breakout of hostilities between Britain and Germany?
|
Let's see; in March of 1939 Hitler ordered the German occupation of the whole of Czechoslovakia (except for the part that Poland occupied), pressured Lithuania to return Memel and Poland to allow railway connections across its territory to allow Germany and East Prussia to be 'reconnected'.
Hitler's occupation of the remainder of Czechoslovakia breached the Munich Teaty of 1938, wherein he stated that he had no further territorial demands to make in Europe.
On the 31st March, 1939, Chamberlain declared formally that Great Britain would guarantee Poland's territorial integrity and that Hitler should reduce his demands.
On the 3rd April Hitler ordered the armed forces to prepare for the invasion of Poland on 1st September.
Hitler hoped, foolishly as it turns out, that Chamberlain would back down this time (as the Allies had over the Anschluss, Sudetenland and the occupation of rump Czechoslovakia) .
He had no casus belli with Poland.
I'll never put you on ignore, Ned. It's too entertaining.
With regard to Micha's post re:Bohemia- the Czechs can boast a history going back to King Wenceslaus, and Austria-Hungary/The Habsburg Empire was not Germany, or 'german'. It happened to be ruled by an ethnic German minority.
In any case, given events in the Austro-Hungarian Empire, Czech nationalism and culture had flourished in the absence of a proper 'national' parliament, and Germans were for instance, a minority in Prague.
Austria-Hungary's defeat by Prussia at Sadowa-Koniggratz also meant that it no longer took part in 'north' German affairs, and in any case going by the logic that Bohemia was supposedly German because there were Germans there, then Germany should also have occupied great swathes of Hungary and Rumania and of course where the Volga Germans lived in Russia.
Using the same logic, Poland could legitimately have taken parts of East Prussia, Russia and Lithuania.
Culture and population did not determine who owned what.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dr Strangelove
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Micha
Thatīs not quite true. Austria-Hungary owned Bohemia for quite some time, so it has been "german". Also August the Strong of Saxony has been King of Poland for several decades. While this is not a sufficiant claim to the land, it shows the historic connections between German culture and the Eastern European territories. |
Austro-Hungary also owned Hungary, Galicia, Transylvannia, Croatia, Slovenia, and Bosnia-Herzegovina. Hitler never made a claim to restoring the Austro-Hungarian empire. In fact he often expressed a great deal of contempt for the old empire.
Yes I'm aware that the Kingdom of Poland once had Saxons on its throne, however by agreement the two titles were never joined.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dr Strangelove
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Micha
While I see your point (and agree), your argumentation is flawed.
Remember that Hitler and the Nazi propaganda viewed Slavs as "lesser people", maybe "primitive natives". So the war in the East was quite similar to colonial expansion during the imperialistic era. Like the USA expanded westward without recognizing the local inhabitants as the legal landowners, Hitler saw a vision of a Greater German Reich with borders expanding far to the east. The Slavic population was more of a nuisance than an ethnic entity that had to be taken care of. This was the greatest mistake of the Axis, IMO. Hitler thought the Soviets would fall quickly because of the countless nationalities rising up against them, but the same time he ordered total annihilation of these minorities (which didnīt help them becoming German allies...). |
The controversy being discussed here was Ned's assertion that Britain was responsible for the outbreak of WW2 by not encouraging the Poles to give in to Hitler's demands. Am I correct in interpreting your post to mean that you're a advocate of Nazi theory?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dr Strangelove
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by molly bloom
Austria-Hungary's defeat by Prussia at Sadowa-Koniggratz also meant that it no longer took part in 'north' German affairs, and in any case going by the logic that Bohemia was supposedly German because there were Germans there, then Germany should also have occupied great swathes of Hungary and Rumania and of course where the Volga Germans lived in Russia.
Using the same logic, Poland could legitimately have taken parts of East Prussia, Russia and Lithuania.
Culture and population did not determine who owned what. |
Hey, don't forget that great swathes of the American midwest were settled by Germans, or that Germans settled parts of Mexico, Brazil, Argentina, Venezuala, and Colombia.
|
|
| |
|
| |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
10-04-2005 18:55
|