Print Page | Close Window

Causes Of World War II

Printed From: History Community ~ All Empires
Category: Regional History or Period History
Forum Name: Modern History
Forum Description: World History from 1918 to the 21st century.
Moderators: Constantine XI, The Hidden Face, Pikeshot1600, Sparten, Leonidas, gcle2003
URL: http://www.allempires.net/forum_posts.asp?TID=23604
Printed Date: 11-Nov-2019 at 19:24
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 11.10 - http://www.webwizforums.com


Topic: Causes Of World War II
Posted By: st darwin
Subject: Causes Of World War II
Date Posted: 23-Feb-2008 at 15:01
Hello everyone. I was recently set an interesting assignment in my History class regarding the causes of the Second World War. Below are six reasons why the war started and we were required to list them in order of importance (with regards to which is a contributory cause, root of the problem etc). Just a bit of fun to but any takers? E.g. Just write say 4,2,3,6,1,5 and discuss away!!
 

1)      The origins of World War II lie in the Treaty of Versailles. The penal clauses of that Treaty inevitably meant a hostile Germany that would, given the opportunity, attempt to redress its grievances.

 

2)      The unavoidable failure of the League of Nations in Manchuria and Ethiopia meant the end of collective security and, consequently, a return to the principle “might is right.”

 

3)      The policy of appeasement encouraged Hitler to continue his plans for the expansion of the Reich. In particular, the attitude of the Western power at Munich confirmed his opinion that they would not go to war with Germany in defence of an Eastern power.

 

4)      Agreement between Britain and France and the Soviet Union would have prevented the outbreak of war. This agreement proved impossible only because of the fear and suspicion of Communism in Government circles in Britain and France, who must, therefore, take responsibility.

 

5)      Nazism meant war: once Hitler had come to power in Germany, a European war was inevitable as the aims and creed of Nazism were bound to conflict with those of other countries. One or more of these would ultimately attempt to resist Hitler.

 

6)      The creation of a series of weak states in Eastern Europe, especially ones that could not even agree with each other, brought about the war as it meant there was no state, or ‘bloc’ of states, to oppose Hitler in the very area that he had stated he planned to conquer.




Replies:
Posted By: Mughal e Azam
Date Posted: 23-Feb-2008 at 16:28

World War II is funny, because even in America people think Hitler, although the Americans had their military bases attacked by the Japanese.

The Japanese were also very violent an inhumane. The amount of lives lost in Manchuria coupled with the European invaders of China (Britan, France, America, etc) created a distrust of foreigners in China.

 



-------------
Mughal e Azam


Posted By: Temujin
Date Posted: 23-Feb-2008 at 21:15
4 and 6 are dumb statements.

the only real reason is 5. the origin of 5 is 1 and the Black friday. then comes 2 and 3 though it wouldn't really had stopped Hitler anyways.


Posted By: maqsad
Date Posted: 24-Feb-2008 at 01:44
Some suggest Japan provoked into attacking Pearl Harbor preemptively because the US was altready supporting the Chinese financially and also underhandedly by encouraging the "flying tigers" mercenary squad to engage the Imperial Japanese Airforce? Obviously Japan also wanted to replace France, Britain and the US as the dominant colonizing power in East Asia 


Posted By: vulkan02
Date Posted: 24-Feb-2008 at 18:34
U.S. put an oil embargo on Japan which essentially placed its whole economy in a grinding halt. Figuring that their army would also become completely ineffective by this in a couple of years, Japan's leaders decided to attack US before it was too late. American leaders certainly did foresee an attack but it was a good excuse to enter the war.

-------------
The beginning of a revolution is in reality the end of a belief - Le Bon
Destroy first and construction will look after itself - Mao


Posted By: jacobtowne
Date Posted: 24-Feb-2008 at 21:39
The six questions, with the exception of #2, are eurocentric. The U.S. fought the equivalent of two separate wars - one in the Pacific, the other in Europe. In my view, the war began with the Japanese invasion of China in 1937.

JT



Posted By: Al Jassas
Date Posted: 25-Feb-2008 at 16:21

Hello to you all

 
The so called "appeasement" of Hitler is a stupid  reason like Temujin said and it was used and raised for pure political reasons. Neither Britain nor France had the power (economic and political not military) or the stomach for a war with Germany and actually certain political movements inside those two countries actually saw Hitler as an Ally not an enemy especially the majority of  the rightwing of French politics.
 
The reason for WWII was simply the failure of the German political system (giving Hitler the full reigns of Power in 1933 despite the fact he did not have the absolute majority and his popularity was rapidly falling). If those politician stood up Germany would have went for a civil war that would have ended with the defeat of the Nazis forever.
 
Yes Versailles was terrible but Europe have already indicated they would not demand the full application of the treaty and maybe even establish a new treaty similar to Lausanne. As for the Americans they got what they wanted, ever since the war was in Europe the wanted to join and hoovered dangerously round the battle field and it wasa natural they will be involved.
 
Al-Jassas


Posted By: Illirac
Date Posted: 25-Feb-2008 at 18:24
I do not agree Al Jassas, first of all Hitler was not losing popularity, second: when Nazism come the economic power and military of Germany was weak.
Probably one of the (many) reason is the pact of non aggression with the USSR, which feared Nazi Germany and which provided them with resources... 5,1,3 and the others does not look good enough for me

-------------
For too long I've been parched of thirst and unable to quench it.


Posted By: Al Jassas
Date Posted: 26-Feb-2008 at 14:44
Hello Illirac
 
I beg to differ with you, in the July 1932 elections, the Nazis were the second party with 37.2% of the popular vote, the two main leftist parties, the SDP and the communists shared nearly 50% of the votes and the Nazis were hated by everyone so politicians had the opportunity to bar them from taking control. In the November election of the same year, with a higher turnout I might add, Nazi support dropped by over 2 million votes to 33% of the popular vote and the rest was for the leftists and other groups, yet political failure led to giving Hitler the reigns of power in January of 1933 which set doom for Germany. If politicians were responsibe they would have done everything in their hands to stop this but they did not.
 
Al-Jassas 


Posted By: jacobtowne
Date Posted: 26-Feb-2008 at 19:17
Al Jassas wrote:
"As for the Americans they got what they wanted, ever since the war was in Europe the wanted to join and hoovered dangerously round the battle field and it wasa natural they will be involved."

If you substitute "Roosevelt" for "Americans," you'll be on the mark. During the late 1930s the U.S. was at the height of isolationism. Americans wanted absolutely nothing to do with the war in Europe, nor did they seek war with Japan. During 1940 and '41, it was Pres. Roosevelt who pushed for aid to Britain, not the American people.

We're still forgetting that there was a war in the Pacific and China-Burma-India.

JT





Posted By: Al Jassas
Date Posted: 26-Feb-2008 at 21:44
Helli jacob
 
Actually there was some strong support within certain communities and politician inside the US for the allies and to a lsser extent to te axis. American pilots and volunteers joined the armed forces of the allies, not in large numbers, despite the law that strips US citizenship from them, which was not applied. Most of the laws proposed by Roosevelt passed through congress easily and the leaders of both parties supported the policies that were used by Japan to justify declaring war, the oil embargo. While they couldn't say publically they want war the acted as if they wanted it this is something different.
 
AL-Jassas


Posted By: red clay
Date Posted: 27-Feb-2008 at 03:10
Originally posted by Mughaal Mughaal wrote:

World War II is funny, because even in America people think Hitler, although the Americans had their military bases attacked by the Japanese.

 

I believe it has to do with which coast your on.  On the East Coast people had been dealing with U boats since 39-40.   Considering the distance it didn't have the impact as a Japanese sub shelling the Oregon coast, which didn't happen until early 42.
 
 
 
 


Posted By: red clay
Date Posted: 27-Feb-2008 at 03:32
Originally posted by Al Jassas Al Jassas wrote:

Helli jacob
 
Actually there was some strong support within certain communities and politician inside the US for the allies and to a lsser extent to te axis. American pilots and volunteers joined the armed forces of the allies, not in large numbers, despite the law that strips US citizenship from them, which was not applied. Most of the laws proposed by Roosevelt passed through congress easily and the leaders of both parties supported the policies that were used by Japan to justify declaring war, the oil embargo. While they couldn't say publically they want war the acted as if they wanted it this is something different.
 
AL-Jassas
 
 
You need to do some serious remedial American history.  In the late 1930's early 40's  the Pacifist movement was incredibly powerful politically.  Isolationism was the general mood across the country.  Roosevelt had a difficult time getting anything to do with Britain through the Congress.
 
Both parties supported the oil embargo because it was in direct response to the invasion of China.[ I know that's only a detail]
 
If the US had been preparing for war, we sure as hell did a lousy job of it.  When we entered the war our army was ranked 16th in size and preparedness.  Our Navy was a little better, it ranked 5-6 but still wasn't "frontline".
 
 
 


Posted By: Al Jassas
Date Posted: 27-Feb-2008 at 07:41
Hello red
 
I know that isolationists and pacifists were very strong after WWI but their power and support eroded quickly after WWII started. Yes, some provisions of the acts that helped the allies past with just one vote but remember, no major party official in both parties or a presidential candidate for that matter opposed what Roosevelt did actually they turned out to be one of his biggest supporters prior entry to WWII. In addition to that, strict isolationists were powerless against the policies of Roosevelt which were supported by the people when he was reelected. Yes, the major issue was economics but in 1940, Roosevelt won a landslide which says it all.
 
AL-Jassas


Posted By: Justinian
Date Posted: 03-Mar-2008 at 23:12
1 and 3 are realistically the only main reasons, to a lesser extent is 5.  The others are more like nitpicking/minimal factors to the point of irrelevance. 

-------------
"War is a cowardly escape from the problems of peace."--Thomas Mann



Posted By: brunodam
Date Posted: 04-Mar-2008 at 01:03
I personally believe WWI and WWII are the same war with a "temporary peace" between  the 2 wars, like in a soccer match (excuse my "elementary" example Smile....). So the "global" causes of WWII are the same of WWI: the anglo-american control of the world and the german tentative to impede it and substitute it. But if we try to find a "precise" cause for only WWII I believe the Treaty of Versailles (with all its mistakes, not only toward Germany) is the right answer.  Brunodam

-------------



Posted By: Temujin
Date Posted: 04-Mar-2008 at 18:47
Originally posted by Justinian Justinian wrote:

1 and 3 are realistically the only main reasons, to a lesser extent is 5.  The others are more like nitpicking/minimal factors to the point of irrelevance. 


i disagree. 3 is actually really redundant. Hitler was going to get Czechoslovakia anyways, he had already plans to take it by force if he doesn't get it at Munich. this is actually what happened with Danzig which started the war. so appeasement only postponed ww2 but it is most certainly not a cause.


Posted By: Justinian
Date Posted: 05-Mar-2008 at 07:06
I guess I look at it as 3 built up the Nazi's strength to the point where a world war was inevitable, whereas if Hitler had never been appeased it would have been a more localized conflict, Barbarossa never happens, less countries are invaded etc. etc. 

-------------
"War is a cowardly escape from the problems of peace."--Thomas Mann



Posted By: aslanlar
Date Posted: 05-Mar-2008 at 20:55
1.) only comes into play because Hitler came to power. Before '33 i don't recall mass demonstrations for breaking the treaty of versailles?
2.) League of nations should of stopped it, but never had power. A greater block could/would have been Britain, France and Russia but they had their own interests. This is pretty much 3.)
4.) is pretty much them lacking to enfore versailles and going with appeasement. However, i still doubt that France would have stopped Germany remiliterizing the Rhineland even if the USSR was an ally.
5.) Nazism didn't mean war if he was stopped in '36. Military leaders were unsure of his policies. Hitler was also going to withdraw if there was ANY french opposition for the Rhineland, this would have seriously affected his authority.
6.) has no real meaning. He invaded Russia for christs sake, i would hardly call that a small state.

In the end, take away the Treaty of Versailles and ww2 would be avoided.
Take away Hitler and ww2 would be avoided.
Take away the self-interests of Britain + France and war would be avoided. I think this would have been the simplest way to defeat Hitler.
It all depends on how back you go... Maybe you might wanna blame it on 19th century German growth? :D


-------------
"The league is alright when sparrows dispute but it can do little when eagles argue" -Mussolini


Posted By: Justinian
Date Posted: 05-Mar-2008 at 21:38
^^ Good points, you reminded of another thing I had wanted to say.  Without the appeasement which was seemingly vindication of Hitler's policies within Germany the army leadership would have had a much better chance of overthrowing him/may have actually attempted it. 
 
Completely agree about Hitler being undecided in his foreign policy early on, (as far as enacting it, not whether he didn't know what he ultimately wanted to do) I think he would have backed down if threatened early on like you said, once he was in a stronger position and pretty self confident he started taking larger and larger risks.  Call the gamblers bluff (which hitler definitely was) early and the effects are not as great.


-------------
"War is a cowardly escape from the problems of peace."--Thomas Mann



Posted By: deadkenny
Date Posted: 08-Mar-2008 at 15:01
Originally posted by Temujin Temujin wrote:

i disagree. 3 is actually really redundant. Hitler was going to get Czechoslovakia anyways, he had already plans to take it by force if he doesn't get it at Munich. this is actually what happened with Danzig which started the war. so appeasement only postponed ww2 but it is most certainly not a cause.


I'm not so sure appeasement really 'delayed' WWII.  If Hitler had gone ahead and attacked Czechoslovakia, assuming that the agreement at Munich doesn't happen, then you're looking at a weaker Germany facing not only a decent Czech army in it's own 'Maginot Line', but also the French, British and possibly the Poles as well.  In addition, the Soviets would be obligated to support the Czech's, although without transit rights through Poland or Rumania, they may not have been able to offer much direct assistance.  Add to all of that the fact that Germany was much weaker militarily in 1938 than in 1939 and the prospects don't look very good for Germany.  Hitler would either have to back down or face a quick defeat.  What Hitler WANTED was an isolated war against Czechoslovakia alone.  However, given the diplomacy at the time, that wasn't a realistic expectation.  The outcome of Munich was a significant factor in turning Stalin away from a 'collective security' approach which opposed Germany and towards collaboration with Germany.  That, combined with the poor relations with Poland produced the Nazi-Soviet pact, once Hitler determined that France and Britain were not going to allow him to have his 'isolated' war against Poland. 

I would give Hitler credit for being able to recognize an obviously 'no-win' situation, and back down in time.  Thus appeasement in effect brought on WWII, by allowing Germany to manoeuver themselves into a position where they felt they might reasonably win.  At a minimum it would have taken much longer for Germany to build up to the point where they could have taken on multiple opponents at the same time, without the resources provided by their occupation of Czech territories, or the resources supply to them by the Soviet Union due to the pact.


-------------
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." George Santayana


Posted By: deadkenny
Date Posted: 08-Mar-2008 at 15:06
Originally posted by aslanlar aslanlar wrote:

1.) only comes into play because Hitler came to power. Before '33 i don't recall mass demonstrations for breaking the treaty of versailles?


The Germans were in violation of Versailles before Hitler, although it was less 'open'.  For example the Germans were collaborating with the Soviets in early air and armour 'experiments', which they were not allowed by Versailles.  They also made use of 'paramilitary' forces outside of the 100,000 man army limit.  However, those technical violations were easy to overlook, since they were not 'blatant' and Germany was otherwise 'behaving' themselves.  It was only under Hitler that the open repudiation and blatant violation of Versailles started.


-------------
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." George Santayana


Posted By: aslanlar
Date Posted: 08-Mar-2008 at 16:29

Sure but breaking the Treaty of Versailles is different then an inevitable path to global conquest isn't it? Do you think the Weimar Republic was heading in that direction?



-------------
"The league is alright when sparrows dispute but it can do little when eagles argue" -Mussolini


Posted By: deadkenny
Date Posted: 08-Mar-2008 at 18:15
Originally posted by aslanlar aslanlar wrote:

Sure but breaking the Treaty of Versailles is different then an inevitable path to global conquest isn't it? Do you think the Weimar Republic was heading in that direction?
 
Yes, I agree with you in making that distinction.  There were certain aspects of Versailles that produced practically universal agreement in Germany - e.g. severe military restrictions, Rhineland occupation, massive reparations, 'German' territory in other countries, the Polish 'corridor' in particular.  However, whereas prior to Hitler coming to power, Germany had sought to mitigate the most objectionable conditions within a diplomatic framework; Nazi Germany openly repudiated Versailles and threatened and ultimately used 'force'.  Also, as you noted, the ultimate objective of Weimar was simply to 'restore' Germany to an unrestricted 'Great Power' status, along the lines of pre-WWI.  Hitler's objective was to 'dominate' Europe, with the move to the east, and become a dominant world power.  So both the methods and the ultimate objectives differed, although in the short term they shared some common goals.


-------------
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." George Santayana


Posted By: Temujin
Date Posted: 08-Mar-2008 at 20:42
Originally posted by deadkenny deadkenny wrote:


I'm not so sure appeasement really 'delayed' WWII.  If Hitler had gone ahead and attacked Czechoslovakia, assuming that the agreement at Munich doesn't happen, then you're looking at a weaker Germany facing not only a decent Czech army in it's own 'Maginot Line', but also the French, British and possibly the Poles as well.  In addition, the Soviets would be obligated to support the Czech's, although without transit rights through Poland or Rumania, they may not have been able to offer much direct assistance.  Add to all of that the fact that Germany was much weaker militarily in 1938 than in 1939 and the prospects don't look very good for Germany.  Hitler would either have to back down or face a quick defeat.  What Hitler WANTED was an isolated war against Czechoslovakia alone.  However, given the diplomacy at the time, that wasn't a realistic expectation.  The outcome of Munich was a significant factor in turning Stalin away from a 'collective security' approach which opposed Germany and towards collaboration with Germany.  That, combined with the poor relations with Poland produced the Nazi-Soviet pact, once Hitler determined that France and Britain were not going to allow him to have his 'isolated' war against Poland. 

I would give Hitler credit for being able to recognize an obviously 'no-win' situation, and back down in time.  Thus appeasement in effect brought on WWII, by allowing Germany to manoeuver themselves into a position where they felt they might reasonably win.  At a minimum it would have taken much longer for Germany to build up to the point where they could have taken on multiple opponents at the same time, without the resources provided by their occupation of Czech territories, or the resources supply to them by the Soviet Union due to the pact.


mmh don't think so. Poland and Czechoslovakia weren't exactly good friends, actually Poland participated in the division of CZ. also the Wehrmacht was more or less the same that would begin the war with Poland a year later. eventually the Czechoslovakian defense mattered little to Hitler, just like fighting the whole world mattered little to him.


Posted By: deadkenny
Date Posted: 08-Mar-2008 at 21:26
Originally posted by Temujin Temujin wrote:

mmh don't think so. Poland and Czechoslovakia weren't exactly good friends, actually Poland participated in the division of CZ. also the Wehrmacht was more or less the same that would begin the war with Poland a year later. eventually the Czechoslovakian defense mattered little to Hitler, just like fighting the whole world mattered little to him.
 
While it is true that the Poles and Czechs were not on the best of terms, they were both indirectly linked via treaties with France.  In a conflict with Germany attacking Czechoslovakia, and France, Britain and the Soviet Union all supporting the Czechs, there was no chance at all of the Poles attacking the Czechs and in fact it was likely that the Poles would join in with France and Britain.
 
As for the Wehrmacht being 'more or less the same' in fall '38 as it was fall '39, that is totally wrong.  Taking over the Czech military equipment, and their industry, was critical to German re-armament efforts historically.  The Germans not only incorporated Czech tanks into their Panzer formations, but actually continued to produce the later versions in the Czech factories they took over.  Furthermore, it wasn't just a matter of military strength.  The pact with the Soviets was critical not only in avoiding having to fight the Red Army at the same time as the French and British, but it also provided Germany with critical resources that mitigated much of the effect of the blockade.  Germany was in a much weaker position, diplomatically, militarily as well as economically in 1938 than there were in 1939.  Hitler could and did 'bluster' with the best of them, however, he also knew when things were lining up to his disadvantage and knew when to back off.  The units moving into the Rhineland in '36 had orders to back off if the French looked like they would fight.  He secured Il Duce's 'blessing' in '38 before moving into Austria.  Previously, in '34, Hitler had 'backed off' in Austria when Italy appeared ready to support Austria after the Nazis assassinated Dollfuss.  Even earlier in '38, Hitler had backed off when there was a 'crisis' over Czechoslovakia in May 1938, caused by his 'massing' of troops along the Czech border.  So, Hitler demonstrated that he would back off in spite of his rhetoric, when circumstances were unfavourable.


-------------
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." George Santayana


Posted By: 02bburco
Date Posted: 20-Jul-2008 at 13:59
there are two answer, a short and a long one
 
1. Hitler
 
2. Economic unrest causing hyperinflation, which in tern causes soical unrest which allows extrist parties like the Nazis to flurish and exploit conditions
 
other factors include the, unstable politcal system of a coalition which was easily exploited, the constant underestemation of hitler by the politcs powers and of cuase the nazis excelent use of propaganda


Posted By: AdamantFire
Date Posted: 20-Jul-2008 at 14:33
Originally posted by 02bburco 02bburco wrote:

there are two answer, a short and a long one
 
1. Hitler
 
2. Economic unrest causing hyperinflation, which in tern causes soical unrest which allows extrist parties like the Nazis to flurish and exploit conditions
 
other factors include the, unstable politcal system of a coalition which was easily exploited, the constant underestemation of hitler by the politcs powers and of cuase the nazis excelent use of propaganda


Agreed.  The social unrest made it nearly impossible for some people to get food, which was easily exploited by anyone who could get that food to them.

An interesting note, and something not to be dismissed, is that once the Nazi movement started, many people joined because of the party structure and also because of Himmler's recruitment efforts (the Leibstandarte grew from a few thousand to around 50,000 within a few years), but also the uniforms.  Seeing 50,000 men march in Berlin in sharp black uniforms, seeing the SA march in theirs, as well as the Hitler Youth (many of them in their memoirs remember wanting to be in the Hitler Jugend because they would get a uniform), was a huge draw for a culture that placed heavy emphasis on masculine strength and military service.  From the Stahlhelm and TellerschmĂĽtze to the insignia and medal on their uniforms, people were sold at least on the look of the Nazi party.

It's really interesting to think that without a few pieces of cloth, the Nazi movement wouldn't have seemed nearly as attractive, though it could have still be successful.


Posted By: Al Jassas
Date Posted: 20-Jul-2008 at 15:00
Hello to you all
 
Well,  I have been reading into WWII since summer began and spent quite some time reading into the events leading to the war.
 
One interesting theory I found and it really changed alot in my mind, said that it was the failure of the Czech government to resist the Nazi's militarily that brought the war. He said, and I didn't find anything that contradicted it, that the Czech army was as big as the German one in 38 and much better equippe. He said that France, threatened by a German advance would have definetly joined the Czechs, a thing that would also have forced the Brits to join and all in all Germany would have stood no chance. Yet the failure of the Czech leadership and their refusal to confront of threats from Germany led them to accept surrender without a single shot and this not only streangthened German resolve, it further advanced pascifism and defeatism among the allies.
 
Is this a possible theory?
 
AL-Jassas


Posted By: Bankotsu
Date Posted: 20-Jul-2008 at 15:23
Major reasons why there was war in 1939 were Hitler's ambitions to expand eastwards and british policy of appeasement.

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


Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 20-Jul-2008 at 15:26
Bankotsu, in view of what you asked recently in another thread, is it not significant that everybody dismisses your position?

-------------
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork
Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.


Posted By: Bankotsu
Date Posted: 20-Jul-2008 at 15:28
You mean neo-con group?


Posted By: deadkenny
Date Posted: 20-Jul-2008 at 15:58
Originally posted by Bankotsu Bankotsu wrote:

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


-------------
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." George Santayana


Posted By: Bankotsu
Date Posted: 20-Jul-2008 at 16:02
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?


Posted By: deadkenny
Date Posted: 20-Jul-2008 at 16:10
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?
 
You're a legend in your own mind.  You've not 'refuted' any of my points.  Are you disputing the geography of where the Rhineland, Austria and Sudetenland are located with respect to Germany?  Are you disputing the British declaration of war on Germany when Poland was invaded?  Not a single territorial gain by the Germans, which was 'allowed' by the British, provided a common border with the Soviet Union.  Your only response has been that Chamberlain didn't want to declare war, he was forced to by the political conditions in Britain that made another 'appeasement' of Hitler impossible.  However, that says absolutely nothing about what British policy was, your claim (which I do not agree with, but that is another argument) is simply limited to Chamberlain and a few others.  The majority of the cabinet, Parliament and voters in Britain would not accept further appeasement and so Chamberlain was 'forced' to carry out the new British policy which led to the declaration of war.


-------------
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." George Santayana


Posted By: Majkes
Date Posted: 20-Jul-2008 at 16:14
Originally posted by Al Jassas Al Jassas wrote:

Hello to you all
 
Well,  I have been reading into WWII since summer began and spent quite some time reading into the events leading to the war.
 
One interesting theory I found and it really changed alot in my mind, said that it was the failure of the Czech government to resist the Nazi's militarily that brought the war. He said, and I didn't find anything that contradicted it, that the Czech army was as big as the German one in 38 and much better equippe. He said that France, threatened by a German advance would have definetly joined the Czechs, a thing that would also have forced the Brits to join and all in all Germany would have stood no chance. Yet the failure of the Czech leadership and their refusal to confront of threats from Germany led them to accept surrender without a single shot and this not only streangthened German resolve, it further advanced pascifism and defeatism among the allies.
 
Is this a possible theory?
 
AL-Jassas
 
Let's not exaggerate Czechoslovakia's power. Czech army wasn't as big as German.
The truth is they were well equipped and the country was industralized. Czechs also had skoda factories and produced good tanks. So conquering Czechoslovakia really improved German tank production. Czechs could also defend themselves well in Sudety cause of rupnik's line and when Germans took Sudety after Munich deal they were defendless.
saying this the fact is that Germans would take Czechoslovakia anyway as that was no opposition for Germans ( see French example ).
Why France would have joined Czech fight against Germany I completely don't understand. they didn't join Poland later on. The whole theory is one big if.


Posted By: Al Jassas
Date Posted: 20-Jul-2008 at 16:28
Well the reason is, according to the guy Robert Jackson, is a different government in France and a better chance for the Czechs to defend their territory successfully. Germany in 38 was still weak and hitler was still not extremely popular. The Army under Halder was still planning for a coup and he said that if the plans for Czechslovakia failed, Halder would have definetly made the coup.
 
AL-Jassas


Posted By: Majkes
Date Posted: 20-Jul-2008 at 17:51
I never heard of Halder's coup planns so I can't say about it. Sure is that with Sudety mountains Czechs would have much better chance to defend themselves against Germany. maybe the war would break out earlier but the same we can say about Austria anschluz. If Allies would attack back then Hitler would have been finnished earlier.


Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 20-Jul-2008 at 20:14
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?
 
You haven't 'refuted' anything. You haven't even addressed the points against you. You just keep going on and on with the same old links to the same old biassed sources, including soviet propaganda and someone who believes that the whole thing was part of the machinations of a secret organisation - the Round Table - founded by Cecil Rhodes to ensure Anglo-American domination of the world.
 
For which the only thing that can be said is that it makes a change from the Freemasons being responsible.
 


-------------
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork
Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.


Posted By: scottmanning13
Date Posted: 21-Jul-2008 at 00:36
Originally posted by Al Jassas Al Jassas wrote:

Hello to you all
 
Well,  I have been reading into WWII since summer began and spent quite some time reading into the events leading to the war.
 
One interesting theory I found and it really changed alot in my mind, said that it was the failure of the Czech government to resist the Nazi's militarily that brought the war. He said, and I didn't find anything that contradicted it, that the Czech army was as big as the German one in 38 and much better equippe. He said that France, threatened by a German advance would have definetly joined the Czechs, a thing that would also have forced the Brits to join and all in all Germany would have stood no chance. Yet the failure of the Czech leadership and their refusal to confront of threats from Germany led them to accept surrender without a single shot and this not only streangthened German resolve, it further advanced pascifism and defeatism among the allies.
 
Is this a possible theory?
 
AL-Jassas

Germany's consumption of portions of Czechoslovakia was just one of many dominoes.

Someone pointed out the lack of Czech military strength. You should also consider that portions of their land were agreed to be given up to Germany at the Munich Agreement in 1938. This agreement notified the Czech government that Germany was going to claim portions of the country and Britain, France, and Italy would give no support if they chose to resist.

When Hitler moved in to take more portions of the country in 1939, what kind of resistance could the Czechs offer? Should they fight knowing full well that their strongest allies just agreed to give Germany portions of the country less than a year earlier?

Had the Czechs resisted at this point, Germany would have still taken over Prague. It would have taken an extra few days, but it still would have happened. I don't see the British or the French declaring war at this stage in the game.


-------------
http://digitalsurvivors.com/archives/nazibodycount.php - Nazi Body Count: 20,946,000 | http://digitalsurvivors.com/archives/communistbodycount.php - Communist: 149,469,610


Posted By: Bankotsu
Date 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 - 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 - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cecil_Rhodes#Political_views

A Reevaluation of Cockburn's Cliveden Set
http://userwww.sfsu.edu/%7Eepf/1999/taylor.html - http://userwww.sfsu.edu/~epf/1999/taylor.html



Posted By: Bankotsu
Date 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 - 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=PA3&dq=little+germany+glut+her+fill+of+the+reds+in+the+east&client=firefox-a&sig=ACfU3U0cRpKb7kH0wISHuKGs1yZr4xDK_Q - 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=PA183&dq=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&sig=-Tbur7sRqO_wXGxBVXtKo1b3QkU - 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.


Posted By: red clay
Date 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.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 


Posted By: Bankotsu
Date 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 - 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=PA107&dq=edens+diary+1935+hitler+simon+&source=web&ots=A58iIH7xr6&sig=IChZUDHy4vJ-mJ8C112mq56Mfks&hl=en - 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 - 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 - 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 - 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.


Posted By: 02bburco
Date 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 


Posted By: gcle2003
Date 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 - 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 - 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/%7Eepf/1999/taylor.html - 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 - 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.


Posted By: deadkenny
Date 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


Posted By: deadkenny
Date 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


Posted By: AdamantFire
Date 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


Posted By: 02bburco
Date Posted: 21-Jul-2008 at 18:25
that actually does sound cool (im not joking) il renember that 


Posted By: Choranzanus
Date 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).


Posted By: deadkenny
Date 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


Posted By: Gargoyle
Date 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!


Posted By: gcle2003
Date 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.


-------------
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork
Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.


Posted By: deadkenny
Date 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


Posted By: Sparten
Date 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".


Posted By: deadkenny
Date 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. 


-------------
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." George Santayana


Posted By: Bankotsu
Date 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?


Posted By: Bankotsu
Date 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 - 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 - 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 - 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 - 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/documents/organization/100320.pdf
http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ho/frus/nixon/xviii/ - 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.


Posted By: gcle2003
Date 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.


Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 04-Aug-2008 at 11:49
Originally posted by Bankotsu Bankotsu wrote:

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

 
Bankotsu you excel yourself with your blatant misrepresentation, done by takeing a quote out of context and reversing its meaning.
 
This is what the Polish foreign minister actually said that day in Moscow:
Quote
The Second World War brought terrible experience to many nations. For us Poles it started on September 1 1939 when we were treacherously attacked from the West and South by Nazi Germany; and two weeks later – on September 17 – aggression from the East was committed by the Stalinist Soviet Union. That invasion marked the fulfillment of an infamous conspiracy known as the Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact, which had been signed in Moscow on August 23, a week before the German attack. It was the most tragic period in the history of the Polish state.
...
The names of the camps – Auschwitz-Birkenau, Bełżec, Chełmno on the Ner, Majdanek, Sobibór, Treblinka, Dachau – they will forever bring to our mind the darkest side of the human nature. The crimes of Stalinism are also horrific. For us, Poles, their most shocking example is the murder of 22 thousand of Polish officers, prisoners-of-war, whose ashes lie in the cemeteries of Katyn, Miednoye and Kharkov.
...
It would be highly desirable if sixty years after the war and sixty-six years after the signing of the Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact, we all agree that the Pact was contrary to law and justice and recognize all its consequences as invalid from the very beginning. Any attempt to defend the Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact constitute a startling combination of legal ignorance and political arrogance.
Bankotsu do you know what a terminological inexactitude is? And do you think the foreign minister of Poland is likely to be a British historian?
 
Yes he said that 'we are told' that the Pact was legitimate. That's true. We're told that by propagandists like you. However the foreign minister went on to point out that what 'we are told' is an outright lie.
 


-------------
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork
Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.


Posted By: Bankotsu
Date Posted: 04-Aug-2008 at 12:00
What misrepresentation?

...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. True, it was a shameful Agreement conceived to appease the aggressor at the expense of Czechoslovakia. The Munich Agreement has found a highlighted place in dictionaries of international law and international relations as an example of an unjust treaty imposed upon a third party against its will. It should be noted here that all its signatories ultimately recognized - during the war or after the war - that it had been invalid from the very beginning...

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


Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 04-Aug-2008 at 16:42
Originally posted by Bankotsu Bankotsu wrote:

What misrepresentation?
The misrepresentation that Rotfeld said the Munich agreement was designed to channel German aggression eastward. And the further misrepresentation implied by your failing to include Rotfeld's condemnation of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact.
Quote
...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.
Rotfeld is saying that is what we are told. He is not saying it was true, and goes on to in fact deny it.
Quote
True, it was a shameful Agreement conceived to appease the aggressor at the expense of Czechoslovakia.
You see (at least I trust anyone else reading this will see) he says it was a shameful agreement conceived to appease the aggressor. Thus denying it was an attempt to channel Germany eastward. We all know it was designed to appease: that is why everybody calls it 'appeasement', d'oh.
Quote
The Munich Agreement has found a highlighted place in dictionaries of international law and international relations as an example of an unjust treaty imposed upon a third party against its will. It should be noted here that all its signatories ultimately recognized - during the war or after the war - that it had been invalid from the very beginning...
No-one here is defending the Munich agreement, because no-one here except you has an axe to grind. As Rotfeld points out, even the signatories recognised it had been invalid. It was timid, weak-kneed and short-sighted, and if Rotfeld wants to call it 'shameful' one can see his point.
 
But it wasn't, and Rotfeld specifically says it wasn't, an attempt to channel Germany eastward, no matter 'what we are told'. The rest of the quotes I gave (or the full speech of anyone looks it up - which I suppose you thought they wouldn't be bothered to) make it clear that what he means by 'what we are told' is what we are told by Soviet propagandists trying to defend the abysmal Molotov-Ribbentrop pact and the assistance given by the Soviets to Germany.
Quote
http://www.polandun.org/templates/statementRotfeld09may.html - http://www.polandun.org/templates/statementRotfeld09may.html


-------------
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork
Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.


Posted By: deadkenny
Date Posted: 04-Aug-2008 at 17:28
Originally posted by Bankotsu Bankotsu wrote:

What misrepresentation?
 
 
I make the following statement:
 
 
"We are told the following.  That Hitler was good for Germany.  Further, Stalin was also a good leader for the Soviet Union.  Hitler's and Stalin's leadership benefited the peoples they governed.  But that is a pack of lies.  Both of them killed millions of the people that they governed."
 
Then you come along and quote an extract from what I said as follows:
 
"... Hitler was good for Germany.  Further, Stalin was also a good leader for the Soviet Union.  Hitler's and Stalin's leadership benefited the peoples they governed...."
 
You then claim that what I said shows I defend Hitler and Stalin, when in fact I was actually saying exactly the opposite.  This is your technique, which you have used over and over again.  I grow weary of wading into the sources you have posted in order to reveal your lies.  I have done it over and over again in the past.  The only sources which actually supported your claims regarding British policy were quigley, yamaguchy and marxists.org.  When you attempted to quote another source, such as Time-Life or a reputatable biography of Chamberlain, in order to lend some credibility to your claims, that source actually contradicted your claims.  You just took limited extracts out of context in order to twist it, as per the example I showed above.   


-------------
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." George Santayana


Posted By: 02bburco
Date Posted: 04-Aug-2008 at 18:29
gargoyle

"caused when britian and france distrupted german plans for living space"

so we should have just let then do it?

if germany hadnt dicided it has a god given right to steamrole other countires  we would not have had to go to war, when went to war to defend other countries soverginty and ultimatly our own if they hadnt got irational ideas of an empire (addimited moslty fuelled by hitler rather than the whole nation" which was completly  unsustaianble in the modern climate of developed europe  then the war wouldnt have bee necesary

was was caused by G< id="WebWizRTE" ="http://www.allempires.net/RTE_.asp?mode=reply&POID=0&ID=1989" style="border: 1px solid rgb165, 172, 178;" ="initialiseWebWizRTE;" ="20" height="250" width="600">ermany and more speciffically Hitler end of, Britian and France have not blame attached to them for the start of the war


Posted By: Gargoyle
Date Posted: 05-Aug-2008 at 04:44
Originally posted by 02bburco 02bburco wrote:

gargoyle "caused when britian and france distrupted german plans for living space"so we should have just let then do it?


Yes... why not?

Why not let "Germania" expand to the east (as Hitler intended) and watch the Soviet Union disappear?????   

Originally posted by 02bburco 02bburco wrote:

if germany hadnt dicided it has a god given right to steamrole other countires


I wonder how many countries Britain and France "steamrole" and how many indigenous peoples perished whilst they created their empires???
   





-------------
Jugo de sandia es muy bueno!


Posted By: Bankotsu
Date Posted: 05-Aug-2008 at 05:29
I don't think these is any misrepresentation.

...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.

True, it was a shameful Agreement conceived to appease the aggressor at the expense of Czechoslovakia.

The Munich Agreement has found a highlighted place in dictionaries of international law and international relations as an example of an unjust treaty imposed upon a third party against its will.

It should be noted here that all its signatories ultimately recognized - during the war or after the war - that it had been invalid from the very beginning...


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


The polish foreign minister was making the point that some say that the munich pact was legal under the laws of that era. That's all.

He later goes on to state his opinion on the intent of the munich pact.

He says:


That treaty was designed to channel German aggression eastward.

He goes on:

True, it was a shameful Agreement conceived to appease the aggressor at the expense of Czechoslovakia.

His opinion on the munich pact was that it was a shameful pact and was designed to turn Germany eastwards.

I agree with the polish foreign minister.

The Munich pact was designed mainly by Britain to turn Germany eastwards to destroy Soviet Union.



Posted By: Bankotsu
Date Posted: 05-Aug-2008 at 06:03
French Ambassador gives his assessment of German foreign policy:


M. COULONDRE, French Ambassador in Berlin, to M. GEORGES BONNET, Minister for Foreign
Affairs. Berlin, December 15, 1938.

...The German people, which taken as a whole is peacefully minded, sees in the better understanding of the two countries a guarantee of peace. Those who are disturbed by the excesses of National-Socialist "dynamism" and by the political and economic tension brought about by the regime, are hoping for some relaxation in the internal and external situation, which might help Germany to return gradually to more normal conditions of life. As to the Party, it is evident that they wanted an agreement with France essentially because of the security it offers in the West, if enterprises in other directions are contemplated.

(2) The will for expansion in the East, as a matter of fact, seems to me as undeniable on the part of the Third Reich, as its disposition to put aside-at least for the present-any idea of conquest in the West; the one is a corollary of the other. The first half of Herr Hitler's programme-the integration of the Deutschtum into the Reich-has been carried out more or less completely; now the hour of the "Lebensraum" has come. The insistence with which it has been explained to me that Germany has no claims in the direction of France would have been enough to enlighten me. But I received even more explicit information; all those with whom I held conversations, with the exception of Herr Hitler, spoke to me, in different ways, and always with intentional vagueness, of the necessity for German expansion in Eastern Europe, Herr von Ribbentrop spoke of "the creation of zones of influence in the East and South-East"; Field-Marshal Goering, of "an essentially economic penetration in the South-East."

I have not personally received very definite confidential information on this subject; but it appears that little by little one can see the outlines of a great German enterprise emerge from what is still nebulous. To secure mastery over Central Europe by reducing Czechoslovakia and Hungary to a state of vassalage and then to create a Greater Ukraine under German control-this is what essentially appears to be the leading idea now accepted by the Nazi leaders, and doubtless by Herr Hitler himself.

Unfortunately the vassalage of Czechoslovakia is almost complete by this time. "My country is now nothing more than a province," my Czech colleague said only yesterday. The German Secret Service is said to be already only working there with Poland in mind and certain German circles are reported to have gone so far as to declare that from now on the Czech army will be called on to play the same part as the Bavarian army under the Second Reich. The construction of the motor road between Breslau and Vienna and of the canal between the Oder and the Danube will be entrusted exclusively to Czech labour. From two equally trustworthy sources I have learnt that in the near future a German-Czech currency agreement will be concluded and will soon be followed by an economic and monetary union.

In Hungary, where resistance will evidently be more determined, they will first endeavour to establish a sort of economic vassalage, and to ensure for the German Army the right of transit, which has become indispensable for action in the east, since Hungarian territory cuts across the Slovak railway.

With regard to the Ukraine, it has been talked about by the whole staff of the National-Socialist Party for the past ten days. Dr. Rosenberg's Centre of Studies, Dr. Goebbels's Services and the "Ost-Europa" organization under the former Minister, Herr Curtius, as well as the Intelligence Service of the German Army, are working on the question. It looks as if the ways and means had not yet been decided upon, but the aim appears to be well defined: to create a Greater Ukraine which would become Germany's granary. In order to achieve this Rumania must be subdued, Poland won over, and Soviet Russia dispossessed; German dynamism is not to be stopped by any of these obstacles, and in military circles, they already talk of the advance to the Caucasus and to Baku.

It is unlikely that Herr Hitler will attempt to achieve his plans concerning the Ukraine by direct military action. It would be contrary to the principles he has professed at different times, and according to which the regime wants neither an ideological war nor the annexation of heterogeneous populations. It seems, moreover, that he has not yet decided on the means of action.

Among those who approach him, a political operation is thought of which would repeat, on a larger scale, that of the Sudeten: propaganda in Poland, in Rumania and in Soviet Russia in favour of Ukrainian independence; support eventually given by diplomatic pressure and by the action of armed bands; Ruthenia would be the focus of the movement. Thus by a curious turn of Fate, Czechoslovakia, which had been established as a bulwark to stem the German drive, now serves the Reich as a battering-ram to demolish the gates to the East.

(3) Nobody in Germany has mentioned the Colonies to me. For the moment at least, only certain specialized circles are occupied with that question. When Herr von Ribbentrop alluded to the demonstrations in France following the German claims it was only to declare that the question might be discussed in five or six years' time. He expressed himself in precisely similar terms when speaking to one of my colleagues, which points to the existence of instructions on the subject. The FĂĽhrer gave the Belgian Ambassador the definite impression that he was not interested in the question, and that he only raised it from time to time to prevent the "rights of ownership" of Germany from falling into abeyance. The Nazi leaders use the method of Descartes, taking up each question in turn; above all, their appetites, whetted both by their needs and by their ambitions, drive them towards the East, towards the "glorious adventure" and the great achievement of the regime, which they are eager to undertake.

(4) It would appear that the difficulties of the economic situation contribute largely to this haste. The shortage of foreign currency following on the enormous expenses for armament entails ever increasing restrictions, particularly of food stuffs. The population is badly nourished, and sometimes probably even underfed. Unemployment has disappeared, in fact there is actually a shortage of labour, as the manufacture of substitutes requires much more labour than the preparation of natural products, but the working men, who are forced to work ten hours a day, are showing signs of weariness, and I have heard of recent cases of ca' canny strikes that were fairly serious. Competent authorities which do not belong to the Party hold that the financial and economic capacity of the country is strained to the limit. But most of the leaders refuse to admit this. In order to sustain and reinforce this preparatory war economy, there is need of a granary, of mines, and of labour; the Ukraine is at the door of the Reich...

http://www.ibiblio.org/pha/fyb/part_2.html#33 - http://www.ibiblio.org/pha/fyb/part_2.html#33


...In a meeting between British and French leaders immediately before Munich, Chamberlain made the following extremely revealing intervention: "There had been indications that there might be in the minds of the German Government an idea that they could begin the disruption of Russia by the encouragement of agitation for an independent Ukraine" ...

http://www.whatnextjournal.co.uk/Pages/History/Appease.html - http://www.whatnextjournal.co.uk/Pages/History/Appease.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 - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanley_Baldwin#Later_life


Letter from WSC (Chateau de L'Horizon, Cannes) to CSC, reporting on visit to Paris, where he had meetings with Paul Reynaud, Sir Eric Phipps, Leon Blum, discussing French relations with Italy and Germany, also discussing fear in London that Hitler would turn against Britain, instead of going to the East...

http://www-archives.chu.cam.ac.uk/perl/node?search_id=1175486;sort_by=Dscore;index=0 - http://www-archives.chu.cam.ac.uk/perl/node?search



Posted By: 02bburco
Date Posted: 05-Aug-2008 at 10:30
what difference does it matter they had no right ot expand thier lands were it was east or west they had to be stopped, Hitler was made, dont think he would have stopped at Europe he would have wanted revenge for WW1 in which he served so just letting then expand was not and option. Moroever with expansion comes power and when europe became directly under threat germany may well have been two powerful to stop. intervention was justified and correct

Addmitildy England did empire build and their treatment of indigenious people is not a shining example of Human right but by 1939 they had stopped and even began granting independance thus reversing thier error (although admitly occupation did leave some good things) Geramny was restarting a trend that had already died and was being reversed and has intentions to do it on a larger scale than even britian. Moroever Britian did try to crerate a supper race or systamatically murder one religion of people so if restarting a dead trend in an area where it had never taken place (developed word) wasnt enough genocide certainly was

In conclusion Britian and france did empire build as germany saught to do but time has moved on and thier were correcting their mistakes and this expansion would not just have been limited to the east.

still then bottom line hitler is totally and fault for the start of the war with unrealistic meglamanic and alexander the greatish ambitions and it was the duty of the developed word i.e. UK and other like US to stop him


Posted By: Bankotsu
Date Posted: 05-Aug-2008 at 10:37
Originally posted by 02bburco 02bburco wrote:

it was the duty of the developed word i.e. UK and other like US to stop him


But if you destroy Germany, you will be opening the gates of europe to bolshevism.

Nazi Germany was the bulwark of europe to Bolshevism.

Also, if Britain wages war with Germany, the independence movements in the British colonies would take advantage to stir up revolution.

Not to mention the activities of the bolsheviks and their world revolution.

Also, your British asian flank is unguarded and would fall prey to Japanese imperialism if a war in europe breaks out.

Who gains from a British-German war?

USA, Japan, Soviet Union, independence movements will gain.

And even if Germany is defeated, all it does is to open the gates of europe to bolshevism.

This is exactly what the Soviet Union wants.


Posted By: Peteratwar
Date Posted: 05-Aug-2008 at 11:53
Originally posted by Gargoyle Gargoyle wrote:

[
I wonder how many countries Britain and France "steamrole" and how many indigenous peoples perished whilst they created their empires???  
   
 
OK I'll bite, how many in each category ?


Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 05-Aug-2008 at 14:33
Originally posted by Bankotsu Bankotsu wrote:

I don't think these is any misrepresentation.

...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.
Precisely. He's saying that it what we have been told. And he is saying it's not true.
 
You're trying to twist it into him asserting it as a fact, rather than just another piece of Soviet propaganda. Actually he denies it.
Quote
True, it was a shameful Agreement conceived to appease the aggressor at the expense of Czechoslovakia.
NOW he is saying what is true. That's why he says 'true'. It means 'the truth is'. The rest up to then is lies. Do you happen to know what 'truth' is - or is it just the latest party line?
Quote
The Munich Agreement has found a highlighted place in dictionaries of international law and international relations as an example of an unjust treaty imposed upon a third party against its will.

It should be noted here that all its signatories ultimately recognized - during the war or after the war - that it had been invalid from the very beginning...

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


The polish foreign minister was making the point that some say that the munich pact was legal under the laws of that era. That's all.
Not just that. He is also saying that some say the pact was justified by the Munich agreement. 'SOME SAY' - i.e. it's a lie. And he is saying that some say the Munich agreement was designed to channel German aggression eastward. 'SOME SAY' - i.e. it's a lie.
 
Only when he says 'True....' is he then agreeing with what follows - that the Agreement was a shameful act of appeasement and, inter alia the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact was an intolerable and unjustifiable act of betrayal .
Quote

He later goes on to state his opinion on the intent of the munich pact.

He says:

That treaty was designed to channel German aggression eastward.
Nonsense - that's not his opinion, it's a statement he is denouncing as part of the justification offered for the unjustifiable - the Soviet aggression against Poland.
Quote
He goes on:

True, it was a shameful Agreement conceived to appease the aggressor at the expense of Czechoslovakia.

His opinion on the munich pact was that it was a shameful pact and was designed to turn Germany eastwards.
No it quite clearly was NOT his opinion. The shameful pact part was - that's why he asserts that is TRUE. The bit about eastward comes BEFORE he says 'True' - it's part of what he is denoucning as a tissue of lies.
Quote

I agree with the polish foreign minister.
No you don't, and that's a self-serving piece of deliberate misinterpretation, which anyone who can read properly will readily see.
Quote
The Munich pact was designed mainly by Britain to turn Germany eastwards to destroy Soviet Union.

No it wasn't. And we're all getting fed up with your single-issue fanaticism here. Get a life.
 
http://www.baltictimes.com/news/articles/11836/ -  
 
 


-------------
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork
Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.


Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 05-Aug-2008 at 14:51
Originally posted by Bankotsu Bankotsu wrote:

Originally posted by 02bburco 02bburco wrote:

it was the duty of the developed word i.e. UK and other like US to stop him


But if you destroy Germany, you will be opening the gates of europe to bolshevism.
Don't you have any knowledge of history at all?
 
Defeating Hitler didn't mean destroying Germany. Hitler was defeated, Germany was not destroyed, and the Soviets were kept out of most of Europe.
Quote

Nazi Germany was the bulwark of europe to Bolshevism.
It was the Nazi-Soviet pact - alliance -  that opened up eastern Europe to Stalinism.
Quote
Also, if Britain wages war with Germany, the independence movements in the British colonies would take advantage to stir up revolution.
I know you don't know enough history to answer this, but why then, when Britain did wage war with Germany, did the colonies not 'take advantage to stir up revolution'?
Quote
Not to mention the activities of the bolsheviks and their world revolution.

Also, your British asian flank is unguarded and would fall prey to Japanese imperialism if a war in europe breaks out.
So - if that's true case why did the British and the French - who also had an Asian empire - start the general war in Europe?
Quote
Who gains from a British-German war?

USA, Japan, Soviet Union, independence movements will gain.
Nobody gained from the war. Certainly not Japan. The US would still have emerged as the most powerful power due entirely to geopolitical circumstances and as o2bburco pointed out, the independence movements were well under way by 1939, even in Africa - check out Herbert Macaulay for instance - let alone India.
Quote

And even if Germany is defeated, all it does is to open the gates of europe to bolshevism.

This is exactly what the Soviet Union wants.
Germany was defeated.
 
If Germany was the only European bulwark against the Soviets, how come the Soviet Union hadn't occupied any eastern European countries before the alliance with Nazi Germany?


-------------
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork
Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.


Posted By: Bankotsu
Date Posted: 05-Aug-2008 at 14:51


...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. True, it was a shameful Agreement conceived to appease the aggressor at the expense of Czechoslovakia. The Munich Agreement has found a highlighted place in dictionaries of international law and international relations as an example of an unjust treaty imposed upon a third party against its will. It should be noted here that all its signatories ultimately recognized - during the war or after the war - that it had been invalid from the very beginning...

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


I would like a neutral party to give an assessment of the above passage of the polish foreign minister's speech at the United Nations.

The minister made the following statement:

That treaty was designed to channel German aggression eastward.

How is the above statement to be interpreted?






Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 05-Aug-2008 at 16:08
Originally posted by Bankotsu Bankotsu wrote:

The minister made the following statement:

That treaty was designed to channel German aggression eastward.
That's begging the question. He did not make that statement. He quoted it as an example of what 'we are told' (by Soviet propagandists, the speech later makes clear).
 
If someone writes 'we are told X, Y and Z' but 'in truth A,B and C'. It means he does not believe X,Y and Z but does believe A,B, and C.
 
cf Matthew 5:
Quote
 38"You have heard that it was said, 'Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.'[ http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%205;&version=31;#fen-NIV-23273g - g ] 39But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. 40And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. 41If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. 42Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you. 
 
43"You have heard that it was said, 'Love your neighbor[ http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%205;&version=31;#fen-NIV-23278h - h ] and hate your enemy.' 44But I tell you: Love your enemies[ http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%205;&version=31;#fen-NIV-23279i - i ] and pray for those who persecute you, 45that you may be sons of your Father in heaven.
Applying your logic, you could claim that Christ said "hate your enemies" and "eye for an eye and tooth for tooth".
 
Instead, he denies both statements.
Quote      
How is the above statement to be interpreted?
You have to read the speech in its entirety. Otherwise you end up asserting nonsense.


-------------
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork
Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.


Posted By: 02bburco
Date Posted: 05-Aug-2008 at 16:15

thanks for the backup gcle

 
in answer to ur question didn't most areas of the empire support britian but many such as india pushed for idependance afterwards.
 
agree with what u said about German not being the gate to bolshivicism and even if it had been i think Hilter would have been worse so even then it would have been a lesser of two evils  


Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 05-Aug-2008 at 16:34
Pretty well the whole empire supported Britain in the war, except Eire, which stayed neutral. There was unrest in the middle eastern mandated territories, but technically of course they weren't part of the Empire (or the Commonwealth for that matter).
 
There were independence movements in progress pre-1939 in most of the colonies (the white dominisons were de facto independent already, which is how Eire stayed neutral) and in particular India, but for the most part the independence movements stopped acting in order to support the war (which of course conted for a great deal in their favour afterward).
 


-------------
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork
Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.


Posted By: Choranzanus
Date Posted: 05-Aug-2008 at 16:49
Originally posted by deadkenny deadkenny wrote:

Originally posted by Temujin Temujin wrote:

i disagree. 3 is actually really redundant. Hitler was going to get Czechoslovakia anyways, he had already plans to take it by force if he doesn't get it at Munich. this is actually what happened with Danzig which started the war. so appeasement only postponed ww2 but it is most certainly not a cause.

(snip)

I would give Hitler credit for being able to recognize an obviously 'no-win' situation, and back down in time.  Thus appeasement in effect brought on WWII, by allowing Germany to manoeuver themselves into a position where they felt they might reasonably win.  At a minimum it would have taken much longer for Germany to build up to the point where they could have taken on multiple opponents at the same time, without the resources provided by their occupation of Czech territories, or the resources supply to them by the Soviet Union due to the pact.

While I agree with a lot you say Kenny, Temujin is right. Hitler did have plans to attack Czechoslovakia and would certainly do so were it not for Munich. It would not be out of line with his other actions at all. After all, he attacked Poland , France and Britain together and later opened an eastern front. I am strongly opposed to any idea that appeasement had any influence whether war will start or not. Appeasement however, destroyed effective opposition against Hitler, that is correct.

Mere existence of Hitler as a chancellor of Germany made war inevitable, that guy was totally nuts.


Posted By: Choranzanus
Date Posted: 05-Aug-2008 at 17:39
Originally posted by deadkenny deadkenny wrote:

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. 

But this was after Molotov-Ribentrop pact, when any hope that Germany would attack Soviet Union before France and Britain would have been foolish. So this "most obvious reality check" is actually void.


Posted By: Gargoyle
Date Posted: 05-Aug-2008 at 18:01

Originally posted by 02bburco 02bburco wrote:

what difference does it matter they had no right to expand thier lands were it was east or west they had to be stopped,


Every country has the right to "expand their lands"...

and...

Every country has the right to defend their lands...


-------------
Jugo de sandia es muy bueno!


Posted By: deadkenny
Date Posted: 05-Aug-2008 at 18:10
Originally posted by Bankotsu Bankotsu wrote:


 
I would like a neutral party to give an assessment of the above passage of the polish foreign minister's speech at the United Nations.

The minister made the following statement:

That treaty was designed to channel German aggression eastward.

How is the above statement to be interpreted?

 
Since you apparently missed it the first time I posted it, I repeat it again.  This is exactly what you are doing in order to twist what the source is saying to appear to say the opposite of what it is actually saying.  YOU CANNOT DETERMINE THE MEANING OUT OF CONTEXT.
 
 
Originally posted by Bankotsu Bankotsu wrote:

What misrepresentation?
 
 
I make the following statement:
 
 
"We are told the following.  That Hitler was good for Germany.  Further, Stalin was also a good leader for the Soviet Union.  Hitler's and Stalin's leadership benefited the peoples they governed.  But that is a pack of lies.  Both of them killed millions of the people that they governed."
 
Then you come along and quote an extract from what I said as follows:
 
"... Hitler was good for Germany.  Further, Stalin was also a good leader for the Soviet Union.  Hitler's and Stalin's leadership benefited the peoples they governed...."
 
You then claim that what I said shows I defend Hitler and Stalin, when in fact I was actually saying exactly the opposite.  This is your technique, which you have used over and over again.  I grow weary of wading into the sources you have posted in order to reveal your lies.  I have done it over and over again in the past.  The only sources which actually supported your claims regarding British policy were quigley, yamaguchy and marxists.org.  When you attempted to quote another source, such as Time-Life or a reputatable biography of Chamberlain, in order to lend some credibility to your claims, that source actually contradicted your claims.  You just took limited extracts out of context in order to twist it, as per the example I showed above.   


-------------
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." George Santayana


Posted By: deadkenny
Date Posted: 05-Aug-2008 at 18:15
Originally posted by Bankotsu Bankotsu wrote:


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

 
How many times have you repeated this particular quote from Baldwin?  10?  12?  What exactly is the relevance for British policy?  Since it seems you are treating us to another spamarama, let me repeat a previous post he you have failed to address.
 
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


Posted By: deadkenny
Date Posted: 05-Aug-2008 at 18:22
Originally posted by Choranzanus Choranzanus wrote:

Originally posted by deadkenny deadkenny wrote:

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. 

But this was after Molotov-Ribentrop pact, when any hope that Germany would attack Soviet Union before France and Britain would have been foolish. So this "most obvious reality check" is actually void.
 
I honestly have no idea what you're trying to say here.  Bankotsu' 'conspiracy theory' is that Britain was trying to lead Germany into a war with the Soviet Union.  Britain gave the guarantee to Poland following Hitler's violation of the Munich agreement.  That was well before the Nazi-Soviet pact.  Britain 'allowed' German expansion into a number of territories that did not provide a common border between Germany and the Soviet Union.  The one country that would have provided that was Poland.  But Britain guaranteed Poland against German aggression, thereby ensuring that Germany would have to 'go west' before they could possibly fight the Soviet Union.  Thus Bankotsu's conspiracy theory is clearly contradicted by the historical facts.  He takes a bunch of anti-Soviet quotes, often out of context, and tries to cobble together 'proof' for his conspiracy theory.  However, if there was any truth to it, Britain should have allowed Germany to invade Poland without interference, as a prelude to an invasion of the Soviet Union.  Instead Britain declared war on Germany.  The British guaranteed forced Hitler into the pact with the Soviets.  The Nazi-Soviet pact didn't trigger the British guarantee. 


-------------
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." George Santayana


Posted By: deadkenny
Date Posted: 05-Aug-2008 at 18:29
Originally posted by Choranzanus Choranzanus wrote:

Originally posted by deadkenny deadkenny wrote:

Originally posted by Temujin Temujin wrote:

i disagree. 3 is actually really redundant. Hitler was going to get Czechoslovakia anyways, he had already plans to take it by force if he doesn't get it at Munich. this is actually what happened with Danzig which started the war. so appeasement only postponed ww2 but it is most certainly not a cause.

(snip)

I would give Hitler credit for being able to recognize an obviously 'no-win' situation, and back down in time.  Thus appeasement in effect brought on WWII, by allowing Germany to manoeuver themselves into a position where they felt they might reasonably win.  At a minimum it would have taken much longer for Germany to build up to the point where they could have taken on multiple opponents at the same time, without the resources provided by their occupation of Czech territories, or the resources supply to them by the Soviet Union due to the pact.

While I agree with a lot you say Kenny, Temujin is right. Hitler did have plans to attack Czechoslovakia and would certainly do so were it not for Munich. It would not be out of line with his other actions at all. After all, he attacked Poland , France and Britain together and later opened an eastern front. I am strongly opposed to any idea that appeasement had any influence whether war will start or not. Appeasement however, destroyed effective opposition against Hitler, that is correct.

Mere existence of Hitler as a chancellor of Germany made war inevitable, that guy was totally nuts.
 
Yes, however, as I stated Hitler wasn't 'nuts' enough to lead his country into an situation where they obviously had no chance in the short term.  Poland was different because Germany was already much better prepared in fall '39 than they had been in spring or fall '38.  Furthermore, Hitler had an alliance with the Soviets to divide Poland in fall '39.  In '38 the Soviets were obligated by treaty to assist the Czechs if the French did so.  Hitler backed down over Austria in '34, when Il Duce opposed any German move into Austria.  He was prepared to back down in '36 with his move into the Rhineland.  He backed down early in '38 when the Czech's mobilized in response to German moves.  Hitler wanted an 'isolated' war against the Czechs no doubt.  However, would he have gone ahead if France and the Soviet Union had supported the Czechs and the Czechs determined to fight?  No, everything I have seen or read suggests that he would not have.  Germany was still too weak in fall '38 to sustain such a conflict.  One has to look in detail at the German OoB in fall '38 vs. one year later to see clearly why.  But Germany was definitely not ready in fall '38 to take on that list of opponents.  They were barely ready in fall '39, and that was with their alliance with the Soviets.


-------------
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." George Santayana


Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 05-Aug-2008 at 20:21
Originally posted by Gargoyle Gargoyle wrote:


Originally posted by 02bburco 02bburco wrote:

what difference does it matter they had no right to expand thier lands were it was east or west they had to be stopped,


Every country has the right to "expand their lands"...
Only in the sense that every man has the right to steal his neighbour's house, wife, manservant, maidservant, ox, ass or anything else that is his neighbour's.
 
Let alone covet them.
 


-------------
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork
Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.


Posted By: Sparten
Date Posted: 05-Aug-2008 at 21:16
Economic causes are insufficently examined. "Living space" was economic in nature after all.


-------------
The Germans also take vacations in Paris; especially during the periods they call "blitzkrieg".


Posted By: Gundamor
Date Posted: 05-Aug-2008 at 23:21
Originally posted by deadkenny deadkenny wrote:

However, if there was any truth to it, Britain should have allowed Germany to invade Poland without interference, as a prelude to an invasion of the Soviet Union.  Instead Britain declared war on Germany.  The British guaranteed forced Hitler into the pact with the Soviets.  The Nazi-Soviet pact didn't trigger the British guarantee. 


I'm not defending the conspiracy theory thing but there plenty of political reasons for the crazy pacts and guarantee's that went on. Britain and France had no intent on backing up the guarantee or the British-Polish defense pact that was signed 2 days after the Soviet-Nazi pact. It was their way to legitimately get into a war with Germany. One which they wanted due to fears of the German aggression/expansion and the effects it could have on their Empire's. There was also a hidden clause I believe that was only for German aggression and when the Polish begged for Britain to do something about the Soviet invasion I believe the response was "Britain will decide who it declares war on." So most of these pacts and guarantees were pretty much blowing smoke up the Poles rear end as France and Britain had decided in Paris, without Polish knowledge, that Poland would not be saved or even attempted to be saved in event of a German invasion.

The British and French to some extent wanted world war 2(or at least a war with Nazi Germany) to happen. The Nazi menace was a very serious threat to their empires and spheres of influence and many probably believed that war would inevitably happen either when it did or years down the road.


-------------
"An eye for an eye only ends up making the whole world blind"


Posted By: Gargoyle
Date Posted: 06-Aug-2008 at 03:20
Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

Only in the sense that every man has the right to steal his neighbour's house, wife, manservant, maidservant, ox, ass or anything else that is his neighbour's.


Ummmmmmmmm... I think it's a little bit more complicated than that...

An individual is bound by the laws of his or her country and in most cases these days if a person stole their "neighbour's house...etc..." they would get into alot of trouble... unless they were rich and can afford a good lawyer...

When it concerns Countries... it's a bit different... things like politics, big business, alliances and strategic interests come into play...

Admittedly there are things such as International Law and the United Nations... but these can be easily side-stepped and manipulated by countries with great global influence and finance... in recent years the war in IRAQ is an example...

Humans have conquered and killed all throught history... it is nothing to be ashamed of... many empires have been built and many empires have been destroyed... it is a repeating process that will continue well into the future...

Ummmmmmmmm...

When the Duke of Normandy conquered England in 1066 and brought with him a controlling French influence... this has always interested me...

-------------
Jugo de sandia es muy bueno!


Posted By: deadkenny
Date Posted: 06-Aug-2008 at 04:16
Originally posted by Gundamor Gundamor wrote:

Originally posted by deadkenny deadkenny wrote:

However, if there was any truth to it, Britain should have allowed Germany to invade Poland without interference, as a prelude to an invasion of the Soviet Union.  Instead Britain declared war on Germany.  The British guaranteed forced Hitler into the pact with the Soviets.  The Nazi-Soviet pact didn't trigger the British guarantee. 


I'm not defending the conspiracy theory thing but there plenty of political reasons for the crazy pacts and guarantee's that went on. Britain and France had no intent on backing up the guarantee or the British-Polish defense pact that was signed 2 days after the Soviet-Nazi pact. It was their way to legitimately get into a war with Germany. One which they wanted due to fears of the German aggression/expansion and the effects it could have on their Empire's. There was also a hidden clause I believe that was only for German aggression and when the Polish begged for Britain to do something about the Soviet invasion I believe the response was "Britain will decide who it declares war on." So most of these pacts and guarantees were pretty much blowing smoke up the Poles rear end as France and Britain had decided in Paris, without Polish knowledge, that Poland would not be saved or even attempted to be saved in event of a German invasion.

The British and French to some extent wanted world war 2(or at least a war with Nazi Germany) to happen. The Nazi menace was a very serious threat to their empires and spheres of influence and many probably believed that war would inevitably happen either when it did or years down the road.
 
I agree to a certain extent.  The guarantee (which was offered unilaterally much earlier in 1939 - it was only the 'formal' agreement which was signed later) was not, from the British perspective, going to mean that Poland would be 'protected' from German aggression.  That was of course impossible.  The British view was that Poland would probably be overrun in the early course of the war, as Serbia had been in WWI.  The British view was that Poland would be reconstituted once the war was won by Britain and France et al.  Now, that wasn't the view of the Poles, who expected some active assistance from their allies BEFORE they were conquered by Germany (and the Soviets from the east, which was not originally anticipated).  The French had a much earlier pre-existing treaty with Poland, which promised assistance on the basis of a situation which no longer existed - i.e. a demilitarized Rhineland.  When it came to it, the French preferred to 're-fight WWI' by remaining on the defense and 'containing' the initial German attack before counterattacking, as at the Marne in WWI. 
 
However, I agree with your view that the British guarantee was not intended to 'protect' Poland, but rather to deter and then contain German aggression and expansion.  Germany gaining limited territories of predominantly German population was one thing, but the occupation of the remainder of Czechoslovakia in violation of Munich and the conquest of Poland were not acceptable to the British.  Again this is all in direct contradiction of the conspiracy theory being put forward by Bankotsu.


-------------
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." George Santayana


Posted By: Bankotsu
Date Posted: 06-Aug-2008 at 05:45
...The German occupation of Bohemia and Moravia in March 1939 marked the turning point for the Milner Group, but not for the Chamberlain group.  In the June 1939 issue, the leading article of The Round Table was entitled “From Appeasement to Grand Alliance.”  Without expressing any regrets about the past, which it regarded as embodying the only possible policy, it rejected appeasement in the future.

 It demanded a “grand alliance” of Poland, Rumania, France, Britain, and others.  Only one sentence referred to Russia;  it said:  “Negotiations to include Soviet Russia in the system are continuing.”  Most of the article justified the previous policy as inevitable in a world of sovereign states.  Until federation abolishes sovereignty and creates a true world government amenable to public opinion, the nations will continue to live in anarchy, whatever their contractual obligations may be;  and under conditions of anarchy it is power and not public opinion that counts. ... The fundamental, though not the only, explanation of the tragic history of the last eight years is to be found in the failure of the English-speaking democracies to realize that they could prevent aggression only by unity and by being strongly armed enough to resist it wherever it was attempted.”...

...From this point onward, the course of the Milner Group was more rigid against Germany.  This appeared chiefly as an increased emphasis on rearmament and national service, policies which the Group had been supporting for a long time.

Unlike the Chamberlain group, they learned a lesson from the events of 15 March 1939.  It would be a mistake, however, to believe that they were determined to resist any further acquisition of territory or economic advantage by Germany.  Not at all.  They would undoubtedly have been willing to allow frontier rectifications in the Polish Corridor or elsewhere in favor of Germany, if these were accomplished by a real process of negotiation and included areas inhabited by Germans, and if the economic interests of Poland, such as her trade outlet to the Baltic, were protected.  In this the Milner Group were still motivated by ideas of fairness and justice and by a desire to avoid a war.  The chief changes were two:  (1) they now felt, as they (in contrast to Chamberlain’s group) had long suspected, that peace could be preserved better by strength than by weakness;  and (2) they now felt that Hitler would not stop at any point based only on justice but was seeking world domination. 

The short-run goal of the Milner Group still remained a Continent dominated by Hitler between an Oceanic Bloc on the west and the Soviet Union on the east.  That they assumed such a solution could keep the peace, even on a short-term basis, shows the fundamental naĂŻvete of the Milner Group. 

The important point is that this view did not prohibit any modification of the Polish frontiers;  not did it require any airtight understanding with the Soviet Union.  It did involve an immediate rearming of Britain and a determination to stop Hitler if he moved by force again.  Of these three points, the first two were shared with the Chamberlain group;  the third was not. 

The difference rested on the fact that the Chamberlain group hoped to permit Britain to escape from the necessity of fighting Germany by getting Russia to fight Germany.  The Chamberlain group did not share the Milner Group’s naive belief in the possibility of three great power blocs standing side by side in peace.  Lacking that belief, they preferred a German-Russian war to a British-German war. 

And, having that preference, they differed from the Milner Group in their willingness to accept the partition of Poland by Germany.  The Milner Group would have yielded parts of Poland to Germany if done by fair negotiation.  The Chamberlain group was quite prepared to liquidate Poland entirely, if it could be presented to the British people in terms which they would accept without demanding war. 

Here again appeared the difference we have already mentioned between the Milner Group and Lloyd George in 1918 and between the Group and Baldwin in 1923, namely that the Milner Group tended to neglect the electoral considerations so important to a party politician.

In 1939 Chamberlain was primarily interested in building up to a victorious electoral campaign for November, and, as Sir Horace Wilson told German Special Representative Wohl in June, “it was all one to the Government whether the elections were held under the cry `Be Ready for a Coming War’ or under a cry `A Lasting Understanding with Germany.' ”

...These distinctions between the point of view of the Milner Group and that of the Chamberlain group are very subtle and have nothing in common with the generally accepted idea of a contrast between appeasement and resistance.  There were still appeasers to be found, chiefly in those ranks of the Conservative Party most remote from the Milner Group;  British public opinion was quite clearly committed to resistance after March 1939.

The two government groups between these, with the Chamberlain group closer to the former and the Milner Group closer to the latter.  It is a complete error to say, as most students of the period have said, that before 15 March the government was solidly appeasement and afterwards solidly resistant. 

The Chamberlain group, after 17 March 1939, was just as partial to appeasement as before, perhaps more so, but it had to adopt a pretense of resistance to satisfy public opinion and keep a way open to wage the November election on either side of the issue.  The Milner Group was anti-appeasement after March, but in a limited way that did not involve any commitment to defend the territorial integrity of Poland or to ally with Russia...


...The events of 1939 do not require our extended attention here, although they have never yet been narrated in any adequate fashion.  The German seizure of Bohemia and Moravia was not much of a surprise to either the Milner or Chamberlain groups;  both accepted it, but the former tried to use it as a propaganda device to help get conscription, while the latter soon discovered that, whatever their real thoughts, they must publicly condemn it in order to satisfy the outraged moral feelings of the British electorate.  It is this which explains the change in tone between Chamberlain’s speech of 15 March in Commons and his speech of 17 March in Birmingham.  The former was what he thought;  the latter was what he thought the voters wanted...


...The unilateral guarantee to Poland given by Chamberlain on 31 March 1939 was also a reflection of what he believed the voters wanted.  He had no intention of ever fulfilling the guarantee if it could possibly be evaded and, for this reason, refused the Polish requests for a small rearmament loan and to open immediate staff discussions to implement the guarantee.  The Milner Group, less susceptible to public opinion, did not want the guarantee to Poland at all.  As a result, the guarantee was worded to cover Polish “independence” and not her “territorial integrity.” 

This was interpreted by the leading article of The Times for 1 April to leave the way open to territorial revision without revoking the guarantee.  This interpretation was accepted by Chamberlain in Commons on 3 April.  Apparently the government believed that it was making no real commitment because, if war broke out in eastern Europe, British public opinion would force the government to declare war on Germany, no matter what the government itself wanted, and regardless whether the guarantee existed or not.

On the other hand, a guarantee to Poland might deter Hitler from precipitating a war and give the government time to persuade the Polish government to yield the Corridor to Germany.  If the Poles could not be persuaded, or if Germany marched, the fat was in the fire anyway;  if the Poles could be persuaded to yield, the guarantee was so worded that Britain could not act under it to prevent such yielding.  This was to block any possibility that British public opinion might refuse to accept a Polish Munich.

That this line of thought was not far distant from British government circles is indicated by a Reuters news dispatch released on the same day that Chamberlain gave the guarantee to Poland.  This dispatch indicated that, under cover of the guarantee, Britian would put pressure on Poland to make substantial concessions to Hitler through negotiations.  According to Hugh Dalton, Labour M.P., speaking in Commons on 3 April, this dispatch was inspired by the government and was issued through either the Foreign Office, Sir Horace Wilson, John Simon, or Samuel Hoare. 

Three of these four were of the Milner Group, the fourth being the personal agent of Chamberlain.  Dalton’s charge was not denied by any government spokesman, Hoare contenting himself with a request to Dalton “to justify that statement.”  Another M.P. of Churchill’s group suggested that Geoffrey Dawson was the source, but Dalton rejected this.

It is quite clear that neither the Chamberlain group nor the Milner Group wanted an alliance with the Soviet Union to stop Hitler in 1939, and that the negotiations were not sincere or vigorously pursued.  The Milner Group was not so opposed to such an agreement as the Chamberlain group.  Both were committed to the four-power pact.  In the case of the Chamberlain group, this pact could easily have developed into an anti-Russian alliance, but in the case of the Milner Group it was regarded merely as a link between the Oceanic Bloc and a Germanic Mitteleuropa.

Both groups hated and despised the Soviet Union, but the Milner Group did not fear it as the Chamberlain group did.  This fear was based on the Marxist threat to the British economic system, and the Milner Group was not wedded nearly as closely to that system as Chamberlain and his friends.  The Toynbee-Milner tradition, however weak it had become by 1939, was enough to prevent the two groups from seeing eye to eye on this issue.

The efforts of the Chamberlain group to continue the policy of appeasement by making economic and other concessions to Germany and their efforts to get Hitler to agree to a four-power pact form one of the most shameful episodes in the history of recent British diplomacy.  These negotiations were chiefly conducted through Sir Horace Wilson and consisted chiefly of offers of colonial bribes and other concessions to Germany.  These offers were either rejected or ignored by the Nazis.

One of these offers revolved around a semi-official economic agreement under which British and German industrialists would form cartel agreements in all fields to fix prices of their products and divide up the world’s market.  The Milner Group apparently objected to this on the grounds that it was aimed, or could be aimed, at the United States.  Nevertheless, the agreements continued;  a master agreement, negotiated at Dusseldorf between representatives of British and German industry, was signed in London on 16 March 1939.  A British government mission to Berlin to help Germany exploit the newly acquired areas of eastern Europe was postponed the same day because of the strength of public feeling against Germany.  As soon as this had died down, secret efforts were made through R.S. Hudson, secretary to the Department of Overseas Trade, to negotiate with Helmuth Wohlthat, Reich Commissioner for the Four Year Plan, who was in London to negotiate an international whaling agreement.

Although Wholthat had no powers, he listened to Hudson and later to Sir Horace Wilson, but refused to discuss the matter with Chamberlain.  Wilson offered:  (1) a non-aggression pact with Germany;  (2) a delimitation of spheres among the Great Powers;  (3) colonial concessions in Africa along the lines previously mentioned;  (4) an economic agreement.  These conversations, reported to Berlin by Ambassador Dirksen in a dispatch of 21 July 1939, would have involved giving Germany a free hand in eastern Europe and bringing her into collision with Russia. 

One sentence of Dirksen’s says:  “Sir Horace Wilson definitely told Herr Wohlthat that the conclusion of a non-aggression pact would enable Britian to rid herself of her commitments vis-a-vis Poland.”  In another report, three days later, Dirksen said:  “Public opinion is so inflamed, and the warmongers and intriguers are so much in the ascendancy, that if these plans of negotiations with Germany were to become public they would immediately be torpedoed by Churchill and other incendiaries with the cry 'No second Munich !' ”

The truth of this statement was seen when news of the Hudson-Wohlthat conversations did leak out and resulted in a violent controversy in the House of Commons, in which the Speaker of the House repeatedly broke off the debate to protect the government.  According to Press Adviser Hesse in the German Embassy in London, the leak was made by the French Embassy to force a break in the negotiations.  The negotiations, however, were already bogging down because of the refusal of the Germans to become very interested in them.  Hitler and Ribbentrop by this time despised the British so thoroughly that they paid no attention to them at all, and the German Ambassador in London found it impossible to reach Ribbentrop, his official superior, either by dispatch or personally. 

Chamberlain, however, in his eagerness to make economic concessions to Germany, gave to Hitler ÂŁ6 million in Czechoslovak gold in the Bank of England, and kept Lord Runciman busy training to be chief economic negotiator in the great agreement which he envisaged.  On 29 July 1939, Kordt, the German charge d’affaires in London, had a long talk with Charles Roden Buxton, brother of the Labour Peer Lord Noel-Buxton, about the terms of this agreement, which was to be patterned on the agreement of 1907 between Britain and Russia.  Buxton insisted that his visit was quite unofficial, but Kordt was inclined to believe that his visit was a feeler from the Chamberlain group.

In view of the close parallel between Buxton’s views and Chamberlain’s, this seems very likely.  This was corroborated when Sir Horace Wilson repeated these views in a highly secret conversation with Dirksen at Wilson’s home from 4 to 6 p.m. on 3 August 1939.  Dirksen’s minute of the same day shows that Wilson’s aims had not changed.  He wanted a four-power pact, a free hand for Germany in eastern Europe, a colonial agreement, an economic agreement, etc. 

The memorandum reads, in part:  “After recapitulating his conversation with Wohlthat, Sir Horace Wilson expatiated at length on the great risk Chamberlain would incur by starting confidential negotiations with the German Government.  If anything about them were to leak out there would be a grand scandal, and Chamberlain would probably be forced to resign.”  Dirksen did not see how any binding agreement could be reached under conditions such as this;  “for example, owing to Hudson’s indiscretion, another visit of Herr Wohlthat to London was out of the question.”  To this, Wilson suggested that “the two emissaries could meet in Switzerland or elsewhere.”  The political portions of this conversation were largely repeated in an interview that Dirksen had with Lord Halifax on 9 August 1939. file:///C:/Documents%20and%20Settings/Avatar%20Viper/Desktop/New%20Folder/0%20-%20World%20War%20II/Carroll%20Quigley%20-%20The%20Anglo-American%20Establishment%204.html#n_18_ - [18]

It was not possible to conceal these activities completely from the public, and, indeed, government spokesmen referred to them occasionally in trial balloons.  On 3 May, Chamberlain suggested an Anglo-German non-aggression pact, although only five days earlier Hitler had denounced the Anglo-German naval agreement of 1935 and the Polish-German non-aggression pact of 1934.  As late as 28 August, Sir Nevile Henderson offered Germany a British alliance if she were successful in direct negotiations with the Poles. file:///C:/Documents%20and%20Settings/Avatar%20Viper/Desktop/New%20Folder/0%20-%20World%20War%20II/Carroll%20Quigley%20-%20The%20Anglo-American%20Establishment%204.html#n_19_ - [19]

This, however, was a personal statement and probably went further than Halifax would have been willing to go by 1939.  Halifax apparently had little faith in Chamberlain’s ability to obtain any settlement with the Germans.  If, by means of another Munich, he could have obtained a German-Polish settlement that would satisfy Germany and avoid war, he would have taken it.  It was the hope of such an agreement that prevented him from making any real agreement with Russia, for it was, apparently, the expectation of the British government that if the Germans could get the Polish Corridor by negotiation, they could then drive into Russia across the Baltic States. 

For this reason, in the negotiations with Russia, Halifax refused any multilateral pact against aggression, any guarantee of the Baltic States, or any tripartite guarantee of Poland.  Instead, he sought to get nothing more than a unilateral Russian guarantee to Poland to match the British guarantee to the same country.

This was much too dangerous for Russia to swallow, since it would leave her with a commitment which could lead to war and with no promise of British aid to her if she were attacked directly, after a Polish settlement, or indirectly across the Baltic States.  Only after the German Soviet Non-aggression Pact of 21 August 1939 did Halifax implement the unilateral guarantee to Poland with a more formal mutual assistance pact between Britain and Poland.  This was done to warn Hitler that an attack on Poland would bring Britain into the war under pressure of British public opinion.

Hitler, as usual, paid no attention to Britain.  Even after the German attack on Poland, the British government was reluctant to fulfill this pact and spent almost three days asking the Germans to return to negotiation.  Even after the British were forced to declare war on Germany, they made no effort to fight, contenting themselves with dropping leaflets on Germany.  We now know that the German generals had moved so much of their forces to the east that they were gravely worried at the effects which might follow an Allied attack on western Germany or even an aerial bombing of the Ruhr...

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




Posted By: Bankotsu
Date Posted: 06-Aug-2008 at 05:46
 **This post has been edited to all but one sentence due to CoC violations. Bankotsu has not provided a commentary. Since this is the case with many of his posts on this page and since we are left to assume that the linked reference is part of his arguement in this thread all of his copy/pasting posts are subject to removal. 
 
11. Plagiarism, the posting of texts found elsewhere without naming either author or source. Posting your own personal commentary is encouraged when copy/pasting from another source. When pasting attempt to place the content in quotes, highlight or underline for presentation purposes. Provide a correct URL link. When referencing from books or periodicals provide the title of the reference, the author and publication date. Posts where the paste is the arguement itself, while not adhering to these requirements, will be deleted.** edited by Seko
 
Plans for appeasement by Chamberlain and plans for aggression by Hitler did not end with Munich....

http://real-world-news.org/bk-quigley/13.html#46 -



Posted By: Bankotsu
Date Posted: 06-Aug-2008 at 05:56
…Any analysis of the motivations of Britain in 1938-1939 is bound to be difficult because different people had different motives, motives changed in the course of time, the motives of the government were clearly not the same as the motives of the people, and in no country has secrecy and anonymity been carried so far or been so well preserved as in Britain. In general, motives become vaguer and less secret as we move our attention from the innermost circles of the government outward.

As if we were looking at the layers of an onion, we may discern four points of view:

(1) the anti-Bolsheviks at the center,
(2) the “three-bloc-world” supporters close to the center,
(3) the supporters of “appeasement,” and
(4) the “peace at any price” group in a peripheral position.


The “anti-Bolsheviks,” who were also anti-French, were extremely important from 1919 to 1926, but then decreased to little more than a lunatic fringe, rising again in numbers and influence after 1934 to dominate the real policy of the government in 1939. In the earlier period the chief figures in this group were Lord Curzon, Lord D’Abernon, and General Smuts. They did what they could to destroy reparations, permit German rearmament, and tear down what they called “French militarism.”

This point of view was supported by the second group, which was known in those days as the Round Table Group, and came later to be called, somewhat inaccurately, the Cliveden Set, after the country estate of Lord and Lady Astor.

It included Lord Milner, Leopold Amery, and Edward Grigg (Lord Altrincham), as well as Lord Lothian, Smuts, Lord Astor, Lord Brand (brother-in-law of Lady Astor and managing director of Lazard Brothers, the international bankers), Lionel Curtis, Geoffrey Dawson (editor of The Times), and their associates. This group wielded great influence because it controlled the Rhodes Trust, the Beit Trust, The Times of London, The Observer, the influential and highly anonymous quarterly review known as The Round Table (founded in 1910 with money supplied by Sir Abe Bailey and the Rhodes Trust, and with Lothian as editor), and it dominated the Royal Institute of International Affairs, called “Chatham House” (of which Sir Abe Bailey and the Astors were the chief financial supporters, while Lionel Curtis was the actual founder), the Carnegie United Kingdom Trust, and All Souls College, Oxford.

This Round Table Group formed the core of the three-bloc-world supporters, and differed from the anti-Bolsheviks like D’Abernon in that they sought to contain the Soviet Union between a German-dominated Europe and an English-speaking bloc rather than to destroy it as the anti-Bolsheviks wanted. Relationships between the two groups were very close and friendly, and some people, like Smuts, were in both. The anti-Bolsheviks, including D’Abernon, Smuts, Sir John Simon, and H. A. L. Fisher (Warden of All Souls College), were willing to go to any extreme to tear down France and build up Germany.

Their point of view can be found in many places, and most emphatically in a letter of August 11, 1920, from D’Abernon to Sir Maurice (later Lord) Hankey, a prot้g้ of Lord Esher who wielded great influence in the inter-war period as secretary to the Cabinet and secretary to almost every international conference on reparations from Genoa (1922) to Lausanne (1932).

D’Abernon advocated a secret alliance of Britain “with the German military leaders in cooperating against the Soviet.” As ambassador of Great Britain in Berlin in 1920-1926, D’Abernon carried on this policy and blocked all efforts by the Disarmament Commission to disarm, or even inspect, Germany (according to Brigadier J. H. Morgan of the commission).

The point of view of this group was presented by General Smuts in a speech of October 23, 1923 (made after luncheon with H. A. L. Fisher). From these two groups came the Dawes Plan and the Locarno pacts. It was Smuts, according to Stresemann, who first suggested the Locarno policy, and it was D’Abernon who became its chief supporter. H. A. L. Fisher and John Simon in the House of Commons, and Lothian, Dawson, and their friends on The Round Table and on The Times prepared the ground among the British governing class for both the Dawes Plan and Locarno as early as 1923 (The Round Table for March 1923; the speeches of Fisher and Simon in the House of Commons on February 19, 1923, Fisher’s speech of March 6th and Simon’s speech of March 13th in the same place, The Round Table for June 1923; and Smuts’s speech of October 23rd).

The more moderate Round Table group, including Lionel Curtis, Leopold Amery (who was the shadow of Lord Milner), Lord Lothian, Lord Brand, and Lord Astor, sought to weaken the League of Nations and destroy all possibility of collective security in order to strengthen Germany in respect to both France and the Soviet Union, and above all to free Britain from Europe in order to build up an “Atlantic bloc” of Great Britain, the British Dominions, and the United States.

They prepared the way for this “Union” through the Rhodes Scholarship organization (of which Lord Milner was the head in 1905-1925 and Lord Lothian was secretary in 1925-1940), through the Round Table groups (which had been set up in the United States, India, and the British Dominions in 1910- 1917), through the Chatham House organization, which set up Royal Institutes of International Affairs in all the dominions and a Council on Foreign Relations in New York, as well as through “Unofficial Commonwealth Relations Conferences” held irregularly, and the Institutes of Pacific Relations set up in various countries as autonomous branches of the Royal Institutes of International Affairs.

This influential group sought to change the League of Nations from an instrument of collective security to an international conference center for “nonpolitical” matters like drug control or international postal services, to rebuild Germany as a buffer against the Soviet Union and a counterpoise to France, and to build up an Atlantic bloc of Britain, the Dominions, the United States, and, if possible, the Scandinavian countries.

One of the effusions of this group was the project called Union Now, and later Union Now with Great Britain, propagated in the United States in 1938-1945 by Clarence Streit on behalf of Lord Lothian and the Rhodes Trust. Ultimately, the inner circle of this group arrived at the idea of the “three-bloc world.”

It was believed that this system could force Germany to keep the peace (after it absorbed Europe) because it would be squeezed between the Atlantic bloc and the Soviet Union, while the Soviet Union could be forced to keep the peace because it would be squeezed between Japan and Germany.

This plan would work only if Germany and the Soviet Union could be brought into contact with each other by abandoning to Germany Austria, Czechoslovakia, and the Polish Corridor. This became the aim of both the anti-Bolsheviks and the three-bloc people from the early part of 1937 to the end of 1939 (or even early 1940).

These two cooperated and dominated the government in that period. They split in the period 1939-1940, with the “three-bloc” people, like Amery, Lord Halifax, and Lord Lothian, becoming increasingly anti-German, while the anti-Bolshevik crowd, like Chamberlain, Horace Wilson, and John Simon, tried to adopt a policy based on a declared but unfought war against Germany combined with an undeclared fighting war against the Soviet Union.

The split between these two groups appeared openly in public and led to Chamberlain’s fall from office when Amery cried to Chamberlain, across the floor of the House of Commons, on May 10, 1940, “In the name of God, go!”

Outside these two groups, and much more numerous (but much more remote from the real instruments of government), were the appeasers and the “peace at any price” people. These were both used by the two inner groups to command public support for their quite different policies. Of the two the appeasers were much more important than the “peace at any price” people.

The appeasers swallowed the steady propaganda (much of it emanating from Chatman House, The Times, the Round Table groups, or Rhodes circles) that the Germans had been deceived and brutally treated in 1919. For example, it was under pressure from seven persons, including General Smuts and H. A. L. Fisher, as well as Lord Milner himself, that Lloyd George made his belated demand on June 2, 1919, that the German reparations be reduced and the Rhineland occupation be cut from fifteen years to two.

The memorandum from which Lloyd George read these demands was apparently drawn up by Philip Kerr (Lord Lothian), while the minutes of the Council of Four, from which we get the record of those demands, were taken down by Sir Maurice Hankey (as secretary to the Supreme Council, a position obtained through Lord Esher).

It was Kerr (Lothian) who served as British member of the Committee of Five which drew up the answer to the Germans’ protest of May, 1 919. General Smuts was still refusing to sign the treaty because it was too severe as late as June 23, 1919.

As a result of these attacks and a barrage of similar attacks on the treaty which continued year after year, British public opinion acquired a guilty conscience about the Treaty of Versailles, and was quite unprepared to take any steps to enforce it by 1930. On this feeling, which owed so much to the British idea of sportsmanlike conduct toward a beaten opponent, was built the movement for appeasement.

This movement had two basic assumptions: (a) that reparation must be made for Britain’s treatment of Germany in 1919 and (b) that if Germany’s most obvious demands, such as arms equality, remilitarization of the Rhineland, and perhaps union with Austria, were met, Germany would become satisfied and peaceful.

The trouble with this argument was that once Germany reached this point, it would be very difficult to prevent Germany from going further (such as taking the Sudetenland and the Polish Corridor).

Accordingly, many of the appeasers, when this point was reached in March 1938 went over to the anti-Bolshevik or “three-bloc” point of view, while some even went into the “peace at any price” group.

It is likely that Chamberlain, Sir John Simon, and Sir Samuel Hoare went by this road from appeasement to anti-Bolshevism. At any rate, few influential people were still in the appeasement group by 1939 in the sense that they believed that Germany could ever be satisfied. Once this was realized, it seemed to many that the only solution was to bring Germany into contact with, or even collision with, the Soviet Union.

The “peace at any price” people were both few and lacking in influence in Britain, while the contrary, as we shall see, was true in France. However, in the period August 1935 to March 1939 and especially in September 1938, the government built upon the fears of this group by steadily exaggerating Germany’s armed might and belittling their own, by calculated indiscretions (like the statement in September 1938 that there were no real antiaircraft defenses in London), by constant hammering at the danger of an overwhelming air attack without warning, by building ostentatious and quite useless air-raid trenches in the streets and parks of London, and by insisting through daily warnings that everyone must be fitted with a gas mask immediately (although the danger of a gas attack was nil).

In this way, the government put London into a panic in 1938 for the first time since 1804 or even 1678. And by this panic, Chamberlain was able to get the British people to accept the destruction of Czechoslovakia, wrapping it up in a piece of paper, marked “peace in our time,” which he obtained from Hitler, as he confided to that ruthless dictator, “for British public opinion.”

Once this panic passed, Chamberlain found it impossible to get the British public to follow his program, although he himself never wavered, even in 1940.

He worked on the appeasement and the “peace at any price” groups throughout 1939, but their numbers dwindled rapidly, and since he could not openly appeal for support on either the anti-Bolshevik or the “three-bloc” basis, he had to adopt the dangerous expedient of pretending to resist (in order to satisfy the British public) while really continuing to make every possible concession to Hitler which would bring Germany to a common frontier with the Soviet Union, all the while putting every pressure on Poland to negotiate and on Germany to refrain from using force in order to gain time to wear Poland down and in order to avoid the necessity of backing up by action his pretense of resistance to Germany.

This policy went completely astray in the period from August 1939 to April 1940.

Chamberlain’s motives were not bad ones; he wanted peace so that he could devote Britain’s “limited resources” to social welfare; but he was narrow and totally ignorant of the realities of power, convinced that international politics could be conducted in terms of secret deals, as business was, and he was quite ruthless in carrying out his aims, especially in his readiness to sacrifice non-English persons, who, in his eyes, did not count…

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


Posted By: Bankotsu
Date Posted: 06-Aug-2008 at 06:00
...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. 

This process was concealed by the fact that this new group was following, in public at least, the policy desired by the Milner Group;  their own policy, which was really the continuation of appeasement for another year after March 1939, was necessarily secret, so that the contrast between the Chamberlain group and the inner circle of the Milner Group in the period after March 1939 was not as obvious as it might have been.

In order to carry out this plan of allowing Germany to drive eastward against Russia, it was necessary to do three things:

(1) to liquidate all the countries standing between Germany and Russia; 

(2) to prevent France from honoring her alliances with these countries;  and

(3) to hoodwink the English people into accepting this as a necessary, indeed, the only solution to the international problem. 

The Chamberlain group were so successful in all three of these things that they came within an ace of succeeding, and failed only because of the obstinacy of the Poles, the unseemly haste of Hitler, and the fact that at the eleventh hour the Milner Group realized the implications of their policy and tried to reverse it...

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



Posted By: Bankotsu
Date Posted: 06-Aug-2008 at 06:18

Secret talks between Hitler and Chamberlain, who tries to bribe Germany

The story was leaked by the French, who feared the British were selling them out to Germany. There was an instant clamour in the press and political circles. The UK government's embarrassment was compounded by the German response. Hitler rejected the offer 'with indignation'. Hudson's proposal for a loan supposedly linked to German disarmament was dismissed as 'the fantasy of a government which has lost its grip on reality'. Hitler denounced an 'arrogant and shameless' offer which suggested Britain thought she was dealing with a 'defeated enemy'.

But Dirksen's papers revealed a much more sinister story of Anglo-German collusion designed to conceal the real, and far more substantive negotiations going on by means of a synthetic hullabaloo over Hudson's 'offer'.

These negotiations had begun more than a month earlier.

Dirksen explained the reasons for secrecy: 'the problem which is puzzling the sponsors of these plans [i.e. Chamberlain and Halifax] most is how to start the negotiations. Public opinion is so inflamed that if plans to negotiate with Germany became public they would immediately be torpedoed'. Discussions took place between Hitler's economic adviser Wohlthat and Sir Horace Wilson, a member of Chamberlain's kitchen cabinet. The essence of Chamberlain's proposal, relayed to Wohlthat, was as follows.

Wohlthat was told 'there were still three big regions in the world where Germany and England could find wide opportunities for activity: the British Empire, China and Russia. England alone could not adequately take care of her vast empire and it would be quite possible for Germany to be given a rather comprehensive share. Just as little could Japan satisfy all China economically; in Russia the situation was similar'. Wilson went on to say that 'the British government had in view the conclusion of two pacts with Germany: the first on non-aggression and the second on non-intervention' in exchange for which, Chamberlain 'would end the British "guarantee" policy and agree to an acceptable settlement of the problems (sic) in Eastern Europe'.

Additionally, the British would prevail on France to abrogate her Mutual Assistance Pact with Russia and abandon all her ties in South-East Europe. It was made clear that the British 'guarantee' to Poland was nothing more than a device to achieve the main aim- a broad alliance with Hitler Germany.

The British wanted a 'non-intervention pact' in order to secure a general demarcation of spheres of influence throughout the world; this would be combined with an economic agreement which amounted to an eventual coalescing of the German and British economies in a mutual exploitation of each country's colonial empires.

There was discussion of the 'need to open and exploit' world markets- including China and the USSR. Just in case anything had been left out, Wilson commented that, if Hitler had any other demands, 'the Fuhrer only has to take a clean sheet of paper and list the questions he is interested in'. These talks were continued in Berlin through early August, when Britain also agreed 'to recognize East Europe as Germany's natural lebensraum (living space)'; to settle the colonial question and end 'Germany's encirclement'.

'Agreement with Germany is still Britain's dearest wish' wrote Dirksen. British efforts to woo Hitler continued into August. Sir Horace Wilson met Fritz Hesse, a Ribbentrop aide, at his Kensington town house to convey a new offer by Chamberlain to conclude a 25-year 'defensive alliance' with Germany. Hesse wanted clarification: did this mean the British would take Germany's side in a war with the Soviet Union? Wilson replied that it did.

Hitler did not respond directly to the latest British overtures. His main concern was that the Soviet Union might still manage to persuade the French and British to negotiate seriously for a mutual assistance pact. His own overtures to the Soviet Government for a Non-aggression Treaty now became more insistent; and they were buttressed, of course, with the plentiful evidence of British bad faith now available to Hitler.

In any case, Hitler had no worries about the likely British response to a German attack on Poland; he was now convinced, and could hardly be otherwise, that Britain would not go to war for the sake of Poland.

Even if the British and French were obliged to honour their 'guarantees' to the extent of declaring war, the Reich would be in no actual danger from the West. So confident was Hitler of this that Germany's western borders were left undefended while the Wehrmacht was hurled at Poland...

http://www.columbia.edu/%7Elnp3/mark_jones/appeasement.htm - http://www.columbia.edu/~lnp3/mark_jones/appeasement.htm


Memorandum of German Ambassador in London Dirksen regarding
Wohlthat's Conversations with Wilson and Hudson (July 21 1939)

http://books.google.com/books?id=8XXVVQCSpVMC&pg=RA1-PA239&dq=secret+anglo+german+talks+1939+wilson&sig=lXrEqXsNEx1VI4XpZklSvcUMKx8#PRA1-PA239,M1 - http://books.google.com/books?id=8XXVVQCSpVMC&pg=RA1


...The seven made their separate ways to Sylt for the meeting. Their purpose was to offer a "second Munich" - a four-power agreement involving Britain, Germany, France and Italy - to make further concessions to German demands for lebensraum (room for living) on condition that the Nazis did not invade Poland.

This offer, authorised by the leading appeaser Lord Halifax, shocked Halifax's biographer Roberts, who had not found any reference to this last-minute offer in either Foreign Office documents or Halifax's private papers. Aberconway showed Roberts 38 pages of documents...

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/02/12/1044927661990.html - http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/02/12/1044927661990.html



...If, by means of another Munich, he could have obtained a German-Polish settlement that would satisfy Germany and avoid war, he would have taken it. 

It was the hope of such an agreement that prevented him from making any real agreement with Russia, for it was, apparently, the expectation of the British government that if the Germans could get the Polish Corridor by negotiation, they could then drive into Russia across the Baltic States.

For this reason, in the negotiations with Russia, Halifax refused any multilateral pact against aggression, any guarantee of the Baltic States, or any tripartite guarantee of Poland...

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



Posted By: deadkenny
Date Posted: 06-Aug-2008 at 12:14
Once again we are 'treated' to a deluge of yamaguch, quigley and twisted out of context extracts from a few other sources.  This is in no way shape or form a response to what anyone else has posted, nor is it your own words or analysis.  Once again it is nothing but....
 
Lovely spam, wonderful spa-a-m,
Lovely spam, wonderful S Spam,
Spa-a-a-a-a-a-a-am,
Spa-a-a-a-a-a-a-am,
SPA-A-A-A-A-A-A-AM,
SPA-A-A-A-A-A-A-AM,
LOVELY SPAM, LOVELY SPAM,
LOVELY SPAM, LOVELY SPAM,
LOVELY SPA-A-A-A-AM...
SPA-AM, SPA-AM, SPA-AM, SPA-A-A-AM!


-------------
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." George Santayana


Posted By: Peteratwar
Date Posted: 06-Aug-2008 at 14:02
Yes, I'm afraid it is just a regurgitation of stuff which has been put on innumerable threads around the internet.
 
The volume doesn't make it any the less rubbish


Posted By: deadkenny
Date Posted: 06-Aug-2008 at 15:56
I also wonder about the copyright issues regarding copy/pasting such large excerpts from another source without any accompanying comment or analysis.  Fair use doctrine usually requires such a context, and that is typically the only justification for 'copying' ANYTHING at all.

-------------
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." George Santayana


Posted By: Bankotsu
Date Posted: 07-Aug-2008 at 00:58
Originally posted by Peteratwar Peteratwar wrote:

The volume doesn't make it any the less rubbish


Peteratwar, I would like you to give the reasons explaining clearly why "Britain turn Germany eastwards to destroy Soviet Union" is rubbish.

Thanks.


Posted By: Bankotsu
Date Posted: 07-Aug-2008 at 03:18




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 - http://www-archives.chu.cam.ac.uk/perl/node?search_id=1174516;sort


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


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=PA3&dq=little+germany+glut+her+fill+of+the+reds+in+the+east&client=firefox-a&sig=ACfU3U0cRpKb7kH0wISHuKGs1yZr4xDK_Q - 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=PA183&dq=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&sig=-Tbur7sRqO_wXGxBVXtKo1b3QkU - http://books.google.com/books?id=qVMXHWtCeAUC&pg
http://www-archives.chu.cam.ac.uk/perl/node?search_id=1174516;sort_by=Dscore;index=0 -

...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...

http://books.google.com.sg/books?id=UyMXon0JmBsC&pg=PA107&lpg=PA107&dq=edens+diary+1935+hitler+simon+&source=web&ots=A58iIH7xr6&sig=IChZUDHy4vJ-mJ8C112mq56Mfks&hl=en - http://books.google.com.sg/books?id=UyMXon0JmBsC&pg=PA107&lpg

http://www-archives.chu.cam.ac.uk/perl/node?search_id=1174516;sort_by=Dscore;index=0 -
...He alluded to a luncheon meeting of 10 May 1938 hosted by Lady Astor, where Chamberlain reportedly communicated to twelve American journalists his secret plans concerning a Four-Power Pact in Europe, with the exclusion of Russia.
The Premier also stated at that time that he was in favor of ceding the Sudeten region of Czechoslovakia to the Germans...

http://books.google.com.sg/books?id=KWQcos95hHsC&pg=PA20&vq=also+stated+at+the+time&dq=may+10+chamberlain+astor&client=firefox-a&source=gbs_search_s&sig=ACfU3U1VxtDuerKLZSziA9UVltVqaXhhtg - http://books.google.com.sg/books?id=KWQcos95hHsC&pg=P


...In a meeting between British and French leaders immediately before Munich, Chamberlain made the following extremely revealing intervention: "There had been indications that there might be in the minds of the German Government an idea that they could begin the disruption of Russia by the encouragement of agitation for an independent Ukraine"...

http://www.whatnextjournal.co.uk/Pages/History/Appease.html - http://www.whatnextjournal.co.uk/Pages/History/Appease.html


...In order to carry out this plan of allowing Germany to drive eastward against Russia, it was necessary to do three things:

(1) to liquidate all the countries standing between Germany and Russia...

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


Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 07-Aug-2008 at 11:15
Originally posted by Sparten Sparten wrote:

Economic causes are insufficently examined. "Living space" was economic in nature after all.
 
Yes. In fact if one is actually looking for the causes of WW2 instead of just trying to propagandise, you have to consider both Asia and Europe. And 'living space' was something both Japan and Germany were seeking. Moreover they were both beginning to suffer from lack of access to raw materials, not just oil.
 
You didn't have to be a crazed antisemite to lead Germany into war in or around 1940, just an ardent nationalist, like those leading Japan.
 
WW2 was a global phenomenon and so were its causes. What as lucky was that there was no third-force threat arising from any of the South American countries to challenge the US.
 


-------------
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork
Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.



Print Page | Close Window

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 11.10 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Copyright ©2001-2017 Web Wiz Ltd. - https://www.webwiz.net