That 43.9% included parties allied with the nazis but you are right still the nazis could of been prevented from taking power . You have too ask yourself why hand power to the Nazis ? or more imporatntly which segment in socirty benefited the most from a Nazi govt ? The industrial/financier segment of course .
WWII happened because Germany, Japan, and Italy were pissed with the post-Versailles world order. Russia was also pissed, but given the immense casualities they suffered in the First World War, as well as the brutal, incoherent Civil War, were less willing to seek redress through conflict.
@StarOfEight No WWII was a good old fashioned classic scenario of capitalist/imperialist nations setting one another up , bickering over consumer markets and strategic outflanking of one another . That is what all wars are fought over pure and simple The control of MARKETS !
If you're saying that Germany was the capitalist/imperialist nation in question then you're absolutely right. WW2 was caused by Germany invading Poland. The nations which you are trying to disparage bent over backwards trying to avoid war. They let Germany have the Ruhr, Austria, and Czechoslavakia. Hitler thought they would let him have Poland as well. Error of judgement on his part. Hitler's original plans for war was supposed to begin around 1945. By this time, Germany's navy would be up to par and the course of the war might have been different.
True, the Nobel brothers were heavily involved at Baku, and it was rumored Rockefeller bought in, but still the czar maintained ownership of 90% of the land around Baku. Numbers have already been shown above of the amounts. Westerners had vested interests in czarist Russia, but hardly owned it. For one, Britain was in no position to attack Germany. For that matter, the French army was overrated as far as what it was geared to do. Since 1932 the French army had been governed by a succession of 19 different governments. Since 1925 its role had been geared to national defense, unsuited to "adventures and conquest." It was not designed to go on the offensive on a massive scale. Almost half of France's infantry divisions were in North Africa on the Mareth Line. There were actually more divisons along the Alpine line, guarding the border with Italy and Spain, than there were along the Maginot Line. France lagged far behind Germany in armored divisons and light mechanized divisions. And the Luftwaffe was superior to Allied air power. No time. Poland fell quicker than either Britain or Germany could mobilize. Remember, right up until Hitler invaded ambassadors were meeting in Rome at the 5 power conference and Hitler was giving assurances that he was trying to diplomatically solve the issues with Poland. It was as much as they could put together at the time. Really? In the early days of the assault on Poland there had been talk in the French high command of trying to get the Balkan states to create a new front under French leadership. Both Weygand and Gamelin thought that while it would be nice to have Germany occupied on several fronts, they thought it a bad idea because, as Gamelin himself said, soon the Germans would be assaulting the Western Front, which indicates most of the top military leadership realized that the Germans would turn west. Neither the French or the British were able to mobilize in the 3 weeks time that Germany overran its half of Poland. France had a war plan to attack the Germans in the event of an invasion, but the French didn't believe Hitler's prediction that Poland could be conquered that fast. And certainly neither the Poles of the French calculated the deal made between Stalin and Hitler to divvy up Poland. The Red Army invading Poland from the east was a stab in the back to Poland and ended any realistic shot of the Allies aiding the Poles. But the French didn't completely sit back. The French did initiate Operation 'Saar' and assaulted the Siegfried Line, but again, the French army, at least on the homefront, was not geared to offensive action, and was repelled along the line. The Saar region, between the Rhine and Moselle, was tough to invade. It was prepped after the defeat of Napoleon to make future French assaults difficult, and the Germans held all the advantages. French artillery, much of which was still WW1-issue rounds, proved ineffective on the line.
That's right. Capitalism is the source of all the world's misery. Certainly, there was no war before the Industrial or Agricultural Revolutions. Certainly, Communist states are a paradise on earth. Certainly, badly paraphrased Lenin is an adequate argument.
No the Nobels controlled the Russian oil industry ! Russian economic life was totally dominated by the affluent west obviously the land was owned by the Russians but not its economy . Agreed Spyke my theory on the Anglo/Franco gamble was that they counted on Germany not risking an invasion in the West . They had plenty of time they knew Germany was going to invade months before Britain/France had been warning Germany not to invade since the start of 1939 . Generals follow orders they do not implement policy again this inaction you pointed out is a telling sign that the Anglo/franco ruling establishment were not going too impede Germanys military progress in Poland . As Poland was needed by Germany for a springboard to invade Russia . Come on mate that is naieve Britain had been rearming since 1936 France had 2 million men under arms they built the maginot line for petes sake those 2 nations were fully prepared for conflict . The Nazi/Soviet deal was ' buy time ' for both Russia and Germany . The Russians knew the attack was coming and Germany needed space to deal with france and Britain . Dont forget Russia approached Britain and France to work out a plan to deal with Germany in the early 30's , France and Britain wouldnt deal with Russia . So in 1934 Russia began prepaing for war that early ! Moving factories behind the Urals , rearming etc . Read Khruschevs memoirs Khruschev remembers he gives a good account about pre barbarossa . The West had the A-Bomb Russia didnt and the West had the Strategic Airpower Russia didnt ! They could of driven the Soviet army back to the Urals ....Why didnt they ? Go figure . $21,358 million is the sum Britain owed after the war a huge sum then and considering Britain before the war was a creditor nation with huge monetary/imperial assets/gold reserves etc . That was some looting by the US ! Far from it if nations really went to war over freedom Israel would of been targeted long ago . Why did Spain conquer South America ? Gold and rubber ! Why did Britain and France aquire vast empires ? For commercial gain ! What was the opium wars fought over ? Britain controlling a lucrative market ! What did Britain and Holland fight 3 wars over ? control over the lucrative Spice Island trade ! As for my claims being easily disputed all you have done is try and justify why Britain and France dawdled , I say they deliberately dawdled afterall what was Poland to them !
2000 years before the Industrial Revolution Rome accrued through conquest a vast empire based on trade and finance sought lays waste your lame argument .
Then show me some evidence of it. Europeans invested heavily in the American West in the 2nd half of the 19th century, so much that the Congress attempted to pass laws that anyone who invested had to be, or become, a US citizen, so would you say the European industrial/financier complex controlled the US? You're correct. Until Poland was invaded most Frenchmen and Brits likely believed, or at least wanted to believe, that Hitler was doing no more than reuniting all German territories and people lost after WW1, but the invasion of Poland certainly changed that. They didn't know anything for certain, and they had been in negotiations with Germany with Hitler giving full assurances that he wanted to solve the issues with Poland diplomatically. Going to full mobilization early was an extreme risk. It had also been French and Russian mobilization in 1914 that caused Germany to mobilize and strike first. But Hitler and Stalin signing the Pact of Steel was a blow to the Allies. Had Stalin backed the Allies, as many thought he would, events might have gone differently. Before the Pact, it was assumed by the Brits and French that the Soviets would react to a German invasion of Poland, since it was on Russia's doorstep. But with the pact between the two, the Allies had no reason to assume that Germany was invading Poland as a stepping stone to Russia, since they were divvying the state up between them. Or if he was, it would be sometime in the future. Obviously the French would prefer Germany, if it became aggressive, to turn East rather than West. But the non-aggression pact between Hitler and Stalin changed that thinking. Now the Allies had to consider Hitler turning West, particularly if they declared war on Germany once the invasion of Poland started. And Hitler considered Britain Germany's main enemy. They had to understand that aiding Poland would invite and attack on the West. If you're going to present it as fact then show some proof of it. All you've done is make the claim it is so. And I say they didn't. But if Poland meant little why did France maintain its 1921 treaty with Poland, and why did Chamberlain in early 1939 give Poland assurances of military assistance if Germany invaded? What would Britain have to gain by risking war with Germany by declaring it would aid Poland? If what you claim were true, Britain could simply have sat back and not make any guarantees to Poland.
What's funny about the invasion of Poland is that if the League of Nations had had any balls, they could have finished Germany right there. Hitler had only a token force guarding the western border. Practically all the German troops were engaged with Poland. If France and England had cared to, they could have marched all the way to Berlin. The same goes for the Rhineland, Hitler sent in a minimal force* and the French turned tail and ran. If Hitler had been denied his first plum, it might have stopped him from being so bold. (*According to Jodl's testimony at Nuremberg, only three battalions crossed the Rhine, and only one division was employed in the occupation of the entire territory. Allied intelligence estimates were higher at three divisions. Hitler commented later, "The fact was, I had only four brigades.") This just goes to show the general attitude of the times. Europe (except for Germany and Italy) was still war-weary from WWI. Peace at any cost was the order of the day. Even at the end, Chamberlain thought he could still forge peace from a dismal situation. He thought he would be hailed as a hero for his actions. I think history has given him a different flavor.
I stated clearly Russias lack of strategic airpower and nuclear weapons even Stalin said Russia couldnt beat America yet you still argue the point . Russia was almost annihilated in an apocalyptic attack Russia was in no shape to fight on . All you have to do is read Khruschev remembers vol 1 all of what I said is reaffirmed there . Russia was devasted economically ! Fact ? I put together a plausible scenario all you seem to be doing is offering up excuses for allied inaction. Precisely France and England had a vested interest in keeping their main economic rival Germany bottled up thats what led to WWI . But that was 1921 Poland had tried unsuccessfully to invade Russia . Germany and Russia have always vied for control of Poland that nation is a buffer between those two . All the belligerent promises to Poland in 1939 was window dressing , why didnt France and Britain go in with Stalin and stop Hitler dead in 1938 ? Again read Khruschev remembers a whole chapter devoted to that episode . Why did britain and France aid Nazi allie Finland against the Soviet attack ? Believe me Russia knew as far back as 1933 with the advent of belligerent Nazism that the plutocratic rulers of Germany were going to take another crack at them .
Britain and France were the main continental powers they always saw Germany as the threat these 2 nations were just going through the motions . It would of looked suspicious if these 2 nations did nothing . Why didnt France and Britain invade Germany straight away as well they could of ? Why was no aid sent to Poland ? Why was the Anglo/Franco military expedition too Norway halfhearted ? They really believed Germany wouldnt risk an assault on the formidable Maginot line and risk a WWI bloodfest thats why . So they said well we will sit back give the Germans the impression we wont do anything , let them invade russia and at some opportune time we will jump in . I ah, disagree. England and France did help the Poles, and they declared war because of the poles... They had broken one alliance with cezes, and they weren't about to do it again... I do agree that they thought that the Germans wouldn't assult France, but it was pretty obvious that it was going to... If the Maginot line had been exteneded, it wouldn't have done much anyway... It wasn't heavy enough, and long ranged bombers would've ripped it apart. The "lighting war" is very different from Trench warfare, and a Maginot wouldn't have done anything... And France had a pitiful offensive military, no way to grab Germany, much less Russia. And the visigoths are allies of the Germans, no, France invading Germany is no no way. And England invading Germany is even farther fetched... They had barely came out of the depression and Germany was the strongest country on the mainland militarily...
Brian, You have to take into consideration the change in warfare that the Nazi's brought to the world. The blitzkrieg. Air support. The other powers were still stuck in the past. The Maginot Line was engineered to stop assaults from WWI era battle strategies. Remember the sadly comical image of the Poles sending out their cavalry against the Panzers? WWII reshaped the way battles were waged. And they were obviously good tactics, we still use them today. More or less. There was no way for England or France to come to the defense of Poland, other than an outright invasion of Germany (which I mentioned above, most likely would have succeeded easily. Hindsight 20/20). The strategy used to balance Europe in those days, was England and France on one side, Russia on the other. When Stalin signed the nonaggression pact, that sealed Poland's doom. It is true that Stalin woke to the German threat before the west, and that he signed the nonaggression pact after failing to alert the west. And there is no way of determining true inner motivations of the leaders at the time. But I think that they truly thought it would never come to war. Hitler seemed a reasonable fellow. A little kooky sometimes, but mostly harmless. Was it the French that did the sieg heil in the olympics? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! In fact, Hitler hung his hopes on the west's disgust of communism. He figured that they would be happy to let him swallow eastern europe and attack Russia. He would probably be right, if there weren't all the little countries in the way. (which is why they were put there to begin with, isn't it?) France had strong treaties with Poland. It's my understanding that Chamberlain actually was ready to let Germany have Poland. With the admonition of "Ok, Hitler, just one more..." again. But France refused, they had finally woken up. They declared war, then England had to back her up. Chamberlain was made a fool in this last round of diplomacy, by the way. If it were his plan to let Germany do it's thing, why would his humiliation be part of it?
It is true that Stalin woke to the German threat before the west, and that he signed the nonaggression pact after failing to alert the west. And there is no way of determining true inner motivations of the leaders at the time. But I think that they truly thought it would never come to war. Hitler seemed a reasonable fellow. A little kooky sometimes, but mostly harmless. Was it the French that did the sieg heil in the olympics? I diagree. Stalin knew that Hitler would invade, he was mobolizing and preparing. The pact with Hitler helped him instead of harming him. He invaded the north eastern countries as well, that meant that he would have more access to his valuable resources, he would'nt have done it without that pact with Hitler. Also to note: Mien Kamph. Destruction and slavery of the slavic people anyone? Stalin wasn't about to ignore Hitler...
When Germany did attack Russia, it took days to convince Stalin that it wasn't a mistake. He couldn't believe it. He, in fact, retreated to his estate and waited for the hard-liners to come over and finish him off once he realized that he had made such a costly mistake. He would have done it in their place. The russian army was annihalated that first year. (at least what forces they had in the west, I'm a bit hazy here, the majority of their forces might have been in the east to deal with Japan or dealing with internal matters) If it hadn't been for Hitler cleaning up Greece after Mussolini's debacle, Russia would have fallen that first year (most likely). A month's delay found German troops within sight of Moscow when the rains began. It took time for Russia to rebuild (or move) the army. The russian defense after this was mostly (shit, what's the word? the civilian insurgency). And about Mein Kampf, I doubt if Stalin ever read it. And if he did, he probably put much of it down as propaganda, Stalin used these techniques himself. Also, although it is clear that the Nazi's were anti-communist, they are National Socialists. It's possible that Stalin thought, much like the rest of the world, that Hitler would come around. Hitler could be quite charming when he needed to be. Even so, it is certain that Stalin was preparing, but not fast enough. It takes time to do all these things. It's hard to create an army in a few short years unless absolutely needed, like invasion or something. As I said before, hindsight is 20/20. All these people had other things on their minds than Germany. Hitler did amazing things lifting Germany from depression to war-readiness in such a short time. (His navy was deficient though. That's an area that can't be hurried easily.) People just weren't able to see everything clearly. The desire for peace clouded their vision.
Thats beside the point how each side estimated each other is immaterial . Britain and France thought they were onto a safe bet they took a gamble and lost . Both Britain and france could of began immediate offensive opeartions against Germany remember France and England had been in an arming themselves since 1936 . Both countries had 10 aircraft carriers and very large airforces . That proves to you there alone with Chamberlain that some other parallaell govt was pulling the strings . Namely the Bristish Financial/Industrial complex . That doesnt stack up if Russia had been preparing for a German invasion since 1934 why would Stalin be taken by surprise . I have raed that in many books about Stalins behaviour yet not one source can be verified . In the West we have been given an "official history " of WWII nice and tidy . The official story goes madman on the loose wants to conquer the world and destroy democracy and we in the free west stopped him . That to me is far to simplistic I believe my version is a lot more sensible concerning the nations involved in that conflict all had belligerent imperial histories .
I don't see how Germany reshaped war is at all irrelevant to the discussion. It's central to the motivations of all the parties. The west was lax in it's surety that Germany would not be able to penetrate the Maginot Line. This new war made the Maginot line irrelevant. The west was sure that it would take more time for Germany to take Poland. The new type of war got it done fast. The west was basing it's strategy on outdated methods. I've already explained this. They could have and would have had they known Hitler had his armies massed to attack Poland, virtually abandoning the defense of his land from the west. Look at it this way, it was a poker game and Hitler outbluffed them all. The west couldn't believe that Germany was undefended. And it wouldn't have been if the generals had maintained control of the army, but Hitler had pretty much taken it away from them by this time. His decision was reckless, but it paid off. Remember that the military establishment in Europe was like a club. There were standard tactics that could be expected for them to follow. Hitler wasn't in the club. He used his own tactics. He was a bug in the ear of military protocol. And you can blame the west for Hitler getting such a tight grip of the army, as well. When he first began his power, the military could take him out anytime they wished. He was somewhat subordinate. Their field was war, and he had to follow their lead. But, after the Rhineland, Austria, and Czechoslavakia the generals had advised against some of these. In some cases almost outright rebellion. Hitler prevailed and each time his authority was greater afterwards. By the time of Poland, no one stood in his way. Ok, if you say so. To me it proves nothing of the sort. Of course, we can only know that which is taught in history books. It's impossible to verify any history for sure. History is written by the winners. This is an old saying. Nothing new there. But the reality is that we have history (as false as it may be) or we have the choice not to believe history. If you throw out official history what can you do? Make up a new one? You'd be creating history based on what you think it should have been like. That's the way the old-timers did it. Passing on tales and hearsay and pure imagination as history. At least the history we have now is based on evidence. Governments leave paper trails. Big paper trails. If you find evidence to the contrary, then you're set. Until then, you're just theorizing.
No I have made sensible observations with my thread I have studied that part of history . If you take into consideration the behaviour of the Britain and France towards Germany in the 1930s you see an almost bending over backwards to appease Germany . They allowed Germany to rearm they even proscribed loans to Germany American industry opened plants in Germany . Take my advice you study carefully the co-operation of that period between those countries . Exactly he out bluffed Britain and France and they were overrun . Now just look at America after France was crushed and Britain left high and dry did you notice how belligerent America became towards Germany ? Remember America only months before was reaffirming its neutrality . America saw her 2 principal rivals disappear and saw her chance and moved in its as simple as that . I never claimed elsewise but there again you cannot talk you have not provided any stable argument to the contrary just tired old standard excerpts from dusty old biased history books .
I was satirizing your argument. If you'll pay attention to your posts throughout this thread, you've laid the blame for WWII at the feet of capitalism/imperialism and finance/industry. Meanwhile, you brush off the imperialism of the Communists, claiming they were allowed to take that land. They weren't allowed. They simply took. After the fact, the West acquiesced. And to repeat, paraphrased Lenin is not particularly convincing.
Fat western democracies (Britain mostly, and i am British) let all the fascist dictatorships get away with too much, and didnt stamp out nazism and fascism when they had the chance. You know Britain refused to arm the Spanish republic in the civil war on the grounds that "they didnt want to aggravate Hitler" - look at the sudetenland, rhineland etc. its a disgrace to liberal democracy.
