History Community ~ All Empires Homepage


This is the Archive on WORLD Historia, the old original forum.

 You cannot post here - you can only read.

 

Here is the link to the new forum:

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Forum LockedCauses Of World War II

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12345 10>
Author
Bankotsu View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel


Joined: 27-Feb-2007
Status: Offline
Points: 511
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Bankotsu Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21-Jul-2008 at 02:17
Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:


You haven't 'refuted' anything. You haven't even addressed the points against you.


Yes I have, numerous times in fact. I have explained everything about british policy of appeasement in 1937-1939 quite clearly.

All the british moves and their intent, I have given the reasons and the supporting evidence when available.

But since you and deakenny both refuse to accept, and want to continue this charade, there is nothing I can do.

Quote
machinations of a secret organisation - the Round Table - founded by Cecil Rhodes to ensure Anglo-American domination of the world.


The above seems to be not accurate. A bit of distortion there.

...The Rhodes Scholarships, established by the terms of Cecil Rhodes’s seventh will, are known to everyone.  What is not so widely known is that Rhodes in five previous wills left his fortune to form a secret society, which was to devote itself to the preservation and expansion of the British Empire...

...This society has been known at various times as Milner’s Kindergarten, as the Round Table Group, as the Rhodes crowd, as The Times crowd, as the All Souls group, and as the Cliveden set.  All of these terms are unsatisfactory, for one reason or another, and I have chosen to call it the Milner Group.  Those persons who have used the other terms, or heard them used, have not generally been aware that all these various terms referred to the same Group...


http://www.yamaguchy.netfirms.com/7897401/quigley/anglo_01.html


In his first will (before he had any real money), Rhodes wanted to create a secret society that would bring the whole world under British rule. The exact wording of the will is:

    To and for the establishment, promotion and development of a Secret Society, the true aim and object whereof shall be for the extension of British rule throughout the world, the perfecting of a system of emigration from the United Kingdom, and of colonisation by British subjects of all lands where the means of livelihood are attainable by energy, labour and enterprise, and especially the occupation by British settlers of the entire Continent of Africa, the Holy Land, the Valley of the Euphrates, the Islands of Cyprus and Candia, the whole of South America, the Islands of the Pacific not heretofore possessed by Great Britain, the whole of the Malay Archipelago, the seaboard of China and Japan, the ultimate recovery of the United States of America as an integral part of the British Empire, the inauguration of a system of Colonial representation in the Imperial Parliament which may tend to weld together the disjointed members of the Empire and, finally, the foundation of so great a Power as to render wars impossible, and promote the best interests of humanity.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cecil_Rhodes#Political_views

A Reevaluation of Cockburn's Cliveden Set
http://userwww.sfsu.edu/~epf/1999/taylor.html



Edited by Bankotsu - 21-Jul-2008 at 02:29
Back to Top
Bankotsu View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel


Joined: 27-Feb-2007
Status: Offline
Points: 511
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Bankotsu Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21-Jul-2008 at 03:12
Originally posted by Majkes Majkes wrote:

Why France would have joined Czech fight against Germany I completely don't understand.


Czechoslovakia was part of France's eastern alliance system against Germany. They had a pact in 1935 for mutual assiatance in case of attack by third party.

See:

Thus Barthou's efforts to encircle Germany were largely but not completely destroyed in the period 1934-1936 by four events: (1) the loss of Poland in January 1934; (2) the loss of Italy by January 1936; (3) the rearmament of Germany and the remilitarization of the Rhineland by March 1936; and (4) the loss of Belgium by October 1936.

The chief items left in the Barthou system were the French and Soviet alliances with Czechoslovakia and with each other. In order to destroy these alliances Britain and Germany sought, on parallel paths, to encircle France and the Soviet Union in order to dissuade France from honoring its alliances with either Czechoslovakia or the Soviet Union. To honor these alliances France required two things as an absolute minimum: (1) that military cooperation against Germany be provided by Britain from the first moment of any French action against Germany and (2) that France have military security on her non-German frontiers. Both of these essentials were destroyed by Britain in the period 1935-1936, and, in consequence, France, finding itself encircled, dishonored its alliance with Czechoslovakia, when it came due in September 1938...

...
Taken together, they changed the French military position so drastically that France, by 1938, found herself in a position where she could hardly expect to fulfill her military obligations to Czechoslovakia and the Soviet Union. This was exactly the position in which the British government wished France to be...

http://real-world-news.org/bk-quigley/12.html#42


Henry "Chips" Channon MP put it this way: "we should let gallant little Germany
glut her fill of the Reds in the East and keep decadent France quiet while she does
so".


http://books.google.com.sg/books?id=8tJuB2AEDogC&pg


...There is one danger, of course, which has probably been in all your minds - supposing the Russians and Germans got fighting and the French went in as allies of Russia owing to that appalling pact they made, you would not feel you were obligated to go and help France, would you? If there is any fighting in Europe to be done, I should like to see the Bolshies and the Nazis doing it...

- British Prime Minister Stanley Baldwin, July 1936

http://books.google.com/books?id=qVMXHWtCeAUC&pg


The reason why Britain had to encircle France was because Britain had to set the stage for Germany to go eastwards. If Germany went east, France might be drawn into a war to oppose that, and Britain might be dragged into the resulting war on the side of France.

But british policy was to turn Germany east.

So Britain had to encircle France and keep it "quiet" while Germany went eastwards (against Russia).

This point is always almost totally ignored in british texts discussing policy in 1935-1939.

In fact, most british texts discussing british policy in 1935-1940 is totally propagandist.

One can learn nothing about british policy through such propagandist texts.


Edited by Bankotsu - 21-Jul-2008 at 03:32
Back to Top
red clay View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph

Tomato Master Emeritus

Joined: 14-Jan-2006
Status: Offline
Points: 2963
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote red clay Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21-Jul-2008 at 04:20
And Gcle wrote- 
 
For which the only thing that can be said is that it makes a change from the Freemasons being responsible.>end quote.
 
 
 
 
 
LOLLOLLOL
 
 
 
Brevity led to confusion, it should be easier to figure out now.  You still might not understand why I think it funny.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 


Edited by red clay - 21-Jul-2008 at 05:01
Back to Top
Bankotsu View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel


Joined: 27-Feb-2007
Status: Offline
Points: 511
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Bankotsu Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21-Jul-2008 at 04:41
Originally posted by red clay red clay wrote:

 
 
For which the only thing that can be said is that it makes a change from the Freemasons being responsible.


???


...And by this date, certain members of the Milner Group and of the British Conservative government had reached the fantastic idea that they could kill two birds with one stone by setting Germany and Russia against one another in Eastern Europe.

In this way they felt that the two enemies would stalemate one another, or that Germany would become satisfied with the oil of Rumania and the wheat of the Ukraine.

It never occurred to anyone in a responsible position that Germany and Russia might make common cause, even temporarily, against the West.  Even less did it occur to them that Russia might beat Germany and thus open all Central Europe to Bolshevism.

This idea of bringing Germany into a collision with Russia was not to be found, so far as the evidence shows, among any members of the inner circle of the Milner Group. 

Rather it was to be found among the personal associates of Neville Chamberlain, including several members of the second circle of the Milner Group.  The two policies followed parallel courses until March 1939.  After that date the Milner Group’s disintegration became very evident, and part of it took the form of the movement of several persons (like Hoare and Simon) from the second circle of the Milner Group to the inner circle of the new group rotating around Chamberlain...


http://yamaguchy.netfirms.com/cikkek/anglo_12b.html


...Eden noted in his diary after talks with Hitler:"Only thing Hitler wants is Air Pact without limitation. Simon much inclined to bite at this....I had to protest and he gave up the idea.... Simon toys with the idea of letting Germany expand eastwards. I am strongly against. Apart from dishonesty it would be our turn next"(cited in Dutton 1994, 50)...

http://books.google.com.sg/books?id=UyMXon0JmBsC&pg=PA107&lpg


Harold Ickes,  U.S. Secretary of the Interior, wrote at the time in his journal:

`(England) kept hoping against hope that she could embroil Russia and Germany with each other and thus escape scot-free herself.'

http://www.plp.org/books/Stalin/node131.html


Two weeks after Munich Baldwin said in a conversation with Lord Hinchingbrooke: "Can't we turn Hitler East? Napoleon broke himself against the Russians. Hitler might do the same".


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanley_Baldwin#Later_life


Letter from WSC to Major-General Sir Hugh Tudor, thanks for letter on the European political situation. Commenting that a strong and growing section of Conservative opinion agreed with Tudor that Britain should form a strong Western Alliance with France and Germany, leaving Germany free to deal with the Soviet Union...

http://www-archives.chu.cam.ac.uk/perl/node?search_id=1174516;sort_by=Dscore;index=0


Mao: We are prepared for it to come, but it will collapse if it comes. It has only a handful of troops, and you Europeans are so frightened of it! Some people in the West are always trying to direct this calamity toward China. Your senior, Chamberlain, and also Daladier of France were the ones who pushed Germany eastward.

Heath: I opposed Mr. Chamberlain then.

http://english.pladaily.com.cn/special/mao/txt/w24.htm


There's no freemasons involved here.

Just the british government and the influence of other political pressure groups like Milner group.


Edited by Bankotsu - 21-Jul-2008 at 05:13
Back to Top
02bburco View Drop Down
Samurai
Samurai
Avatar

Joined: 12-Mar-2008
Location: Southamtpon
Status: Offline
Points: 121
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote 02bburco Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21-Jul-2008 at 09:28
thanks for that adament did know that much detail about the recruit, uniform thing before now just basic GCSE history 
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 06-Dec-2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 7011
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21-Jul-2008 at 11:21
Originally posted by Bankotsu Bankotsu wrote:

Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:


You haven't 'refuted' anything. You haven't even addressed the points against you.


Yes I have, numerous times in fact. I have explained everything about british policy of appeasement in 1937-1939 quite clearly.

All the british moves and their intent, I have given the reasons and the supporting evidence when available.
Giving your opinion is not presenting evidence, nor is it 'refuting', espec ially when all the factual record is against you. All it is is denying.
 
The factual record is that the UK did not push Hitler eastward, but went to war to stop him expanding eastward, They did exactly the opposite - they attracted Hitler's attention and attacks westward, while the Soviet Union co-operated with Hitler in providing him with the assurance he would not be attacked by them in the east.
Quote
But since you and deakenny both refuse to accept, and want to continue this charade, there is nothing I can do.
You can't do anything because all the factual evidence is against you. It is of course fully accepted by everybody that for a short period the British government attenpted to appease Hitler, and that there were Hitler sympathisers in Britain.
Quote
Quote
machinations of a secret organisation - the Round Table - founded by Cecil Rhodes to ensure Anglo-American domination of the world.


The above seems to be not accurate. A bit of distortion there.

...The Rhodes Scholarships, established by the terms of Cecil Rhodes’s seventh will, are known to everyone.  What is not so widely known is that Rhodes in five previous wills left his fortune to form a secret society, which was to devote itself to the preservation and expansion of the British Empire...

...This society has been known at various times as Milner’s Kindergarten, as the Round Table Group, as the Rhodes crowd, as The Times crowd, as the All Souls group, and as the Cliveden set.  All of these terms are unsatisfactory, for one reason or another, and I have chosen to call it the Milner Group.  Those persons who have used the other terms, or heard them used, have not generally been aware that all these various terms referred to the same Group...


http://www.yamaguchy.netfirms.com/7897401/quigley/anglo_01.html


In his first will (before he had any real money), Rhodes wanted to create a secret society that would bring the whole world under British rule. The exact wording of the will is:

    To and for the establishment, promotion and development of a Secret Society, the true aim and object whereof shall be for the extension of British rule throughout the world, the perfecting of a system of emigration from the United Kingdom, and of colonisation by British subjects of all lands where the means of livelihood are attainable by energy, labour and enterprise, and especially the occupation by British settlers of the entire Continent of Africa, the Holy Land, the Valley of the Euphrates, the Islands of Cyprus and Candia, the whole of South America, the Islands of the Pacific not heretofore possessed by Great Britain, the whole of the Malay Archipelago, the seaboard of China and Japan, the ultimate recovery of the United States of America as an integral part of the British Empire, the inauguration of a system of Colonial representation in the Imperial Parliament which may tend to weld together the disjointed members of the Empire and, finally, the foundation of so great a Power as to render wars impossible, and promote the best interests of humanity.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cecil_Rhodes#Political_views
All that does is repeat the same allegation again. You don't prove a secret conspiracy theory just by saying a secret conspiracy existed.
Quote
A Reevaluation of Cockburn's Cliveden Set
http://userwww.sfsu.edu/~epf/1999/taylor.html
I knew Claud moderately well, when I was working for the Sunday Telegraph and he contributed a column from Ireland where he was mostly living[1]. That was in the early sixties when, unlike Hobsbawm, he had lost faith in the Soviet Union. However at the time in question he was still a convinced Soviet supporter and propagandist, toeing the party line on appeasement (against it before the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact, for it - and against the war - thereafter, until June 1941, when he started supporting the war again ConfusedSmile).
 
You couldn't provide a better example of a Soviet propagandist. Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claud_Cockburn confirms this, but says nothing for some reason about his shift in views after 1947.
 
[1] That he and I were both working for a right-wing newspaper may take some swallowing.
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork
Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.
Back to Top
deadkenny View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 21-Aug-2007
Status: Offline
Points: 994
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote deadkenny Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21-Jul-2008 at 12:56
First, can we please avoid turing every thread into the 'spamfest' that your original 'conspiracy theory' thread is?
 
In this thread, you originally posted:

Originally posted by Bankotsu Bankotsu wrote:

Hitler wanted to expand east and Britain encouraged and let Hitler expand eastwards against Russia.

To which I responded:

Originally posted by deadkenny deadkenny wrote:

So now you're going to repeat your 'conspiracy theory' in every thread that even tangentially involves the issue? This is discussed exhaustively in your other thread. Not to carry over the entire argument here, but a brief synopsis for those who do not care to reference that other thread:

Rhineland - west, not east of Germany

Austria - south, not east of Germany

Sudetenland - south, not east of Germany

The one territory that was east of Germany, and would have provided Germany with a common border with the Soviet Union was Poland. Britain declared war on Germany when Germany invaded Poland. Your assertion that 'Britain encouraged and let Hitler expand easwards against Russia.' is false, failing the first and most obvious reality check.

Your reply was:
 
Originally posted by Bankotsu Bankotsu wrote:

deadkenny, I have refuted all of your above points before, but you keep on repeating it over and over.

Why?

So you refuse to agree with my refutations?
 
Now, the definition of 'refute' is:

Originally posted by dictionary dictionary wrote:

"To prove to be false or erroneous; overthrow by argument or proof"

So, the statements of fact which I made were:
 

1. Rhineland - west, not east of Germany

2. Austria - south, not east of Germany

3. Sudetenland - south, not east of Germany

4. None of above provided common border between Germany and S.U.
 
5. Britain declared war on Germany when Germany invaded Poland
 
Now, please point out exactly how you have 'proven to be false or erroneous' all of these five points.  If you respond, please do not go off on another tangent, but for once please try to specifically address these five points which you claim to have 'refuted'.
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." George Santayana
Back to Top
deadkenny View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 21-Aug-2007
Status: Offline
Points: 994
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote deadkenny Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21-Jul-2008 at 13:08
Originally posted by Bankotsu Bankotsu wrote:


Thus Barthou's efforts to encircle Germany were largely but not completely destroyed in the period 1934-1936 by four events: (1) the loss of Poland in January 1934; (2) the loss of Italy by January 1936; (3) the rearmament of Germany and the remilitarization of the Rhineland by March 1936; and (4) the loss of Belgium by October 1936.

The chief items left in the Barthou system were the French and Soviet alliances with Czechoslovakia and with each other. In order to destroy these alliances Britain and Germany sought, on parallel paths, to encircle France and the Soviet Union in order to dissuade France from honoring its alliances with either Czechoslovakia or the Soviet Union. To honor these alliances France required two things as an absolute minimum: (1) that military cooperation against Germany be provided by Britain from the first moment of any French action against Germany and (2) that France have military security on her non-German frontiers. Both of these essentials were destroyed by Britain in the period 1935-1936, and, in consequence, France, finding itself encircled, dishonored its alliance with Czechoslovakia, when it came due in September 1938...
 
This is a good example of how your oft quoted quigley source simply 'makes up' facts to support its (conspiracy) theory.  Why did France require immediate military cooperation from Britain in order to fight against Germany in the 1935-36 timeframe?  That simply makes no sense whatsoever.  At that point in time Germany had only just started openly rearming, in violation of Versailles.  Even in fall 1939 Germany only had barely adequate (according to you totally inadequate) defenses in the west while destroying Poland.  So how on Earth can anyone imagine that France needed immediate military cooperation from Britain in order to take on Germany in the 1935-36 timeframe in a scenario where Germany was fighting Czechoslovakia, and France and the Soviet Union were actively supporting the Czechs?  That is the most ridiculous statement I have seen yet, and it reveils either a complete ignorance of the military situation as it existed in that timeframe or, more likely, a desparate attempt to twist and distort the truth in order to 'create' facts which appear to support a theory which simply isn't true.
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." George Santayana
Back to Top
AdamantFire View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary
Avatar

Joined: 17-Jul-2008
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Points: 0
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote AdamantFire Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21-Jul-2008 at 15:59
Originally posted by 02bburco 02bburco wrote:

thanks for that adament did know that much detail about the recruit, uniform thing before now just basic GCSE history 


Well, it's certainly not common knowledge, and the only reason I can claim to know it is because I work in a 20th century military museum that specializes in uniforms, especially headgear (as fun as that sounds).  If you ever need to know something about military dress or headgear, I'm your person for sure. :D
Back to Top
02bburco View Drop Down
Samurai
Samurai
Avatar

Joined: 12-Mar-2008
Location: Southamtpon
Status: Offline
Points: 121
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote 02bburco Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21-Jul-2008 at 18:25
that actually does sound cool (im not joking) il renember that 
Back to Top
Choranzanus View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 03-Apr-2007
Location: Czech Republic
Status: Offline
Points: 6
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Choranzanus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03-Aug-2008 at 15:40
In my opinion the cause of WWII in Europe was Hitler. We might discuss why he came to power and so on, but inventing any other reasons for war is not only unnecessary but ultimately misleading.
Also, what Bankotsu says doesn't really sound completely outlandish to me (I can't judge his other threads).
Back to Top
deadkenny View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 21-Aug-2007
Status: Offline
Points: 994
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote deadkenny Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03-Aug-2008 at 15:48
Yes, you make a good point.  With all of the 'east' and 'west' pointing fingers at each other, one should not forget the fact that Hitler wanted and deliberately set out to start a war.  He just wanted to prepare for and 'arrange' the war so as to be able to win it. 
 
However, if Bankotsu's 'conspiracy theory' doesn't sound completely outlandish to you, then I suggest that you read William Shirer's "Rise and Fall of the Third Reich' for example.  He (and many other 'mainstream' sources) are clear that British policy changed after Hitler violated the Munich agreement, and further British policy was never to facilitate a war and German conquest, but rather to contain it.  Unfortunately the Czechs were callously sacrificed by Chamberlain in furtherance of that policy.  However, the one thing that was not going to happen was for that mistake to be repeated with Poland after Hitler had just blatantly violated the agreement over Czechoslovakia.
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." George Santayana
Back to Top
Gargoyle View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel
Avatar

Joined: 25-May-2006
Location: Australia
Status: Offline
Points: 681
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Gargoyle Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03-Aug-2008 at 18:15

World War II was "caused" by the United Kingdom and France when they declared war on Germany... and by doing so they disturbed Hitler's plans of obtaining Lebensraum in the east...



Jugo de sandia es muy bueno!
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 06-Dec-2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 7011
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03-Aug-2008 at 20:22
World War II started in 1937 in China as a result of Japanese aggression.
 
If the fighting had been restricted to Europe and North Africa it wouldn't have been a world war.


Edited by gcle2003 - 03-Aug-2008 at 20:23
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork
Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.
Back to Top
deadkenny View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 21-Aug-2007
Status: Offline
Points: 994
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote deadkenny Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03-Aug-2008 at 21:17
The fighting in 'WWI' was mostly 'restricted' to Europe and the Middle East.  The 'mopping' up of some German colonies in the Pacific was a negligible factor.  Furthermore, without the subsequent invasion of the Soviet Union and involvement of the US, would it have been a 'World War'?  Germany attacks and quickly defeats Poland in alliance with the Soviets.  Germany then attacks in the west and defeats France.  Britain agrees to end the war (let's say a bomb kills Churchill during the BoB).  Is that a 'world war'?  In terms of starting the escalation that ultimately resulted in 'WWII', Hitler was the key.  Without the European war, Japan would not have been emboldened sufficiently to attack anyone other than China.
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." George Santayana
Back to Top
Sparten View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar
Totalitarian Iconoclast

Joined: 18-Mar-2006
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 5009
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Sparten Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03-Aug-2008 at 21:18
Originally posted by deadkenny deadkenny wrote:

Yes, you make a good point.  With all of the 'east' and 'west' pointing fingers at each other, one should not forget the fact that Hitler wanted and deliberately set out to start a war.  He just wanted to prepare for and 'arrange' the war so as to be able to win it. 
 
However, if Bankotsu's 'conspiracy theory' doesn't sound completely outlandish to you, then I suggest that you read William Shirer's "Rise and Fall of the Third Reich' for example.  He (and many other 'mainstream' sources) are clear that British policy changed after Hitler violated the Munich agreement, and further British policy was never to facilitate a war and German conquest, but rather to contain it.  Unfortunately the Czechs were callously sacrificed by Chamberlain in furtherance of that policy.  However, the one thing that was not going to happen was for that mistake to be repeated with Poland after Hitler had just blatantly violated the agreement over Czechoslovakia.
The British could do a damn to help anyone in the east militarily. So it was reality not callpusness which caused the Czechoslovakia debacle.
The Germans also take vacations in Paris; especially during the periods they call "blitzkrieg".
Back to Top
deadkenny View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 21-Aug-2007
Status: Offline
Points: 994
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote deadkenny Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03-Aug-2008 at 21:27
Originally posted by Sparten Sparten wrote:

The British could do a damn to help anyone in the east militarily. So it was reality not callpusness which caused the Czechoslovakia debacle.
 
True in terms of the (specifically) British military capacity to assist the Czechs.  However, Chamberlain did negotiate an agreement with Hitler for the take over of Czech territory without any input from the Czechs.  He then got the French to 'back him up' in threatening to 'leave the Czechs to their fate' in dealing with Germany if the Czechs refused to accept the agreement.  If the British had done nothing, the French would have been obligated according to a pre-existing treaty to assist the Czechs against the Germans, and the Soviets would also have had an obligation in the scenario where the French intervened.  So it was a rather 'callous' move on the part of Chamberlain to sacrifice the Czechs in order to 'maintain peace' and / or 'buy time'.  It's not such a great deal to be on the 'receiving end' and have YOUR territory occupied by Nazi's in order to 'buy time' for someone else. 


Edited by deadkenny - 03-Aug-2008 at 21:28
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." George Santayana
Back to Top
Bankotsu View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel


Joined: 27-Feb-2007
Status: Offline
Points: 511
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Bankotsu Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04-Aug-2008 at 05:21
Originally posted by deadkenny deadkenny wrote:

He (and many other 'mainstream' sources) are clear that British policy changed after Hitler violated the Munich agreement, and further British policy was never to facilitate a war and German conquest, but rather to contain it.


Which british policy changed?
Back to Top
Bankotsu View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel


Joined: 27-Feb-2007
Status: Offline
Points: 511
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Bankotsu Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04-Aug-2008 at 05:27
Originally posted by Choranzanus Choranzanus wrote:

Also, what Bankotsu says doesn't really sound completely outlandish to me (I can't judge his other threads).


Do you mean Britain turning Germany eastwards to destroy Soviet Union?

That is common knowledge in some countries where they teach that in history books (not Britain, for obvious reasons).

For example, before United Nations General Assembly:

We are told sometimes that the criminal plot of the two dictatorships –  Stalin’s and Hitler’s – was legitimate under the international law of the time. What’s more, it constituted a justified or even essential defense in view of the Munich Agreement concluded in September 1938 among Nazi Germany, Italy, the United Kingdom and France.

That treaty was designed to channel German aggression eastward...

http://www.polandun.org/templates/statementRotfeld09may.html


...While all this was going on, the remorseless wheels of appeasement were grinding out of existence one country after another.  The fatal loss was Czechoslovakia.  This disaster was engineered by Chamberlain with the full co-operation of the Milner Group...

http://yamaguchy.netfirms.com/cikkek/anglo_12b.html


...In the meantime the British had been working out a plan of their own. It involved, as we have said,

(1) separation of the Sudetenland from Czechoslovakia, probably through the use of a plebiscite or even by outright partition;

(2) neutralization of the rest of Czechoslovakia by revising her treaties with Russia and France, and

(3) guarantee of this rump of Czechoslovakia (but not by Britain).

This plan was outlined to the Czech ambassador in London by Lord Halifax on May 25th, and was worked out in some detail by one of Lord Halifax's subordinates, William (now Lord) Strang, during a visit to Prague and to Berlin in the following week. This was the plan which was picked up by Lord Runciman and presented as his recommendation in his report of September 21, 938.

It is worthy of note that on September 2nd Lord Runciman sent a personal message by Henlein to Hitler in which he said that he would have a settlement drawn up by September 15th. What is, perhaps, surprising is that Lord Runciman made no use whatever of the Karlsbad Demands or the extensive concessions to meet them which the Czechs had made during these negotiations, but instead recommended to the British Cabinet on September 16th, and in his written report five days later, the same melange of partition, plebiscites, neutralization, and guarantee which had been in the mind of the British Foreign Office for weeks. It was this plan which was imposed on the Czechs by the Four-Power Conference at Munich on September 30th...

http://real-world-news.org/bk-quigley/13.html#45


...Mao: We are prepared for it to come, but it will collapse if it comes. It has only a handful of troops, and you Europeans are so frightened of it! Some people in the West are always trying to direct this calamity toward China.

Your senior, Chamberlain, and also Daladier of France were the ones who pushed Germany eastward.

Heath: I opposed Mr. Chamberlain then...

http://english.pladaily.com.cn/special/mao/txt/w24.htm


...PM Chou: Originally Western Europe had hoped that Germany would go eastwards.

Dr. Kissinger: Western Europe.

PM Chou: At Munich.

Dr. Kissinger: Yes, at Munich. Western Europe had very superficial leaders. They didn’t have the courage to pursue any policy towards a conclusion. Once they had done Munich it made no sense to fight for Poland. But that is a different issue. And I don’t blame Stalin, because from his point of view he gained himself the essential time...


http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/100320.pdf
http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ho/frus/nixon/xviii/


There is nothing complex about causes of WWII.

The reasons are simple.

Hitler wanted to expand east.

Britain let him expand east because they wanted to turn German aggression eastwards against Soviet Union.

British public was pissed after Hitler violated munich agreement.

Britain was forced to declare war due to the pressure of british public to respond to Hitler's invasion of Poland. If British government failed to respond, Chamberlain's government would fall.

Why phoney war?

Because Britain never ever wanted to fight Germany in 1939.

But british public wanted war.

So Chamberlain staged a phoney war.

He declared war but didn't wage war.

Edited by Bankotsu - 04-Aug-2008 at 06:34
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 06-Dec-2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 7011
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04-Aug-2008 at 11:33
Originally posted by deadkenny deadkenny wrote:

The fighting in 'WWI' was mostly 'restricted' to Europe and the Middle East. 
Given that, I don't really think WWI would qualify as a 'world war'. Not as much as the Seven Years War or the Napoleonic wars.  
Quote
The 'mopping' up of some German colonies in the Pacific was a negligible factor.  Furthermore, without the subsequent invasion of the Soviet Union and involvement of the US, would it have been a 'World War'?  Germany attacks and quickly defeats Poland in alliance with the Soviets.  Germany then attacks in the west and defeats France.  Britain agrees to end the war (let's say a bomb kills Churchill during the BoB).  Is that a 'world war'?  In terms of starting the escalation that ultimately resulted in 'WWII', Hitler was the key.  Without the European war, Japan would not have been emboldened sufficiently to attack anyone other than China.
 
Somewhere in the world war was continuously raging from 1937 to 1945. Obviously it wasn't a 'world war' when it first started, whether you count the invasion of Poland or the invasion of China, or indeed the invasion of the Soviet Union.
 
Since the American continent was never threatened, arguably the whole world was never involved. So I don't think trying to identify the point where it finally became world-wide has much point. However the first incident of the series that eventually engulfed pretty well the whole world was the 1937 invasion of China.
 
If the question was meant to be 'what caused the invasion of Poland and the Franco-German declaration of war in 1939', that would be a better way of putting it.
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork
Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12345 10>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 11.10
Copyright ©2001-2017 Web Wiz Ltd.

This page was generated in 0.109 seconds.