NationStates Jolt Archive

If you were in charge of the "Allies" in the run-up to WWII, at which point would you have declared war on Germany assuming they would not cave in to diplomatic talks? Would you follow a policy of appeasement or declare war earlier (poll coming)?

If it had been my call, I'd have stopped him at the Sutedetenland.

Failing that, a surprise attack after the treaty over Poland the Nazis made with the Soviets.

The first time they broke a treaty.


Realistically, once I had built enough of a military force to make a dent in their forces. Honestly ya'll let them break the rules for entirely too long before you stepped in, and then got your asses whipped. Good thing the Brits stood up to them and also good thing the Nazis were stupid enough to attack Russia.

When adolf hitler came to power.

When Hitler invaded the Sudetenland; the German military was still not ready for war, especially a long one that would demand large quantities of supplies. The Allies could have struck then and stopped German expansion in its tracks, with fewer losses and a prevented Holocaust to boot. However, it would have been very difficult to drum up support for a war at that time in the Allied nations.

When he occupied Cz and declared war on Poland...I would have stopped him.

Adolf Hitler was an eloquent, well-spoken man, and no one considered him evil until after he was proven to have slaughtered millions of civilians. His rise to power would not have been a trigger for war, no matter who was leading countries at that time.
One must remember that after World War I, Germany was penalized by the Treaty of Versailles in a way that was deemed unfair to just about every Allied country by the late '30s. Hitler's retaking of former German soil (i.e., part of Czechoslovakia, Sutedetenland, etc.), was regarded as fair since the Treaty of Versailles unfairly stripped Germany of that land earlier.
But we can't just ignore the treaty altogether. I would have stopped him at Czech. Otherwise the treaty would have been for nothing.

Hellos,
Since this is assuming we can go back in time, I would go back a little farther, and choke hitler to death with his own umbilical cord.

or stick something in the parents car, so that when they turn the key...bang!

millions died because of him. i can live with killing the one who did it.

-Rafe

If you were in charge of the "Allies" in the run-up to WWII, at which point would you have declared war on Germany assuming they would not cave in to diplomatic talks? Would you follow a policy of appeasement or declare war earlier (poll coming)?

When adolf hitler came to power.
Try to take off the 20/20 retrospectacles. Invading just because they eleected a right-winger would be unjustifiable, and impossible considering the state of Europe's militaries at the time.

Hitler is back?!?

Hitler is back?!?

yeah

I would have never declared war on him. If by “Allies” you mean Britain, France and their smaller associates, that is. He only attacked those countries after they declared war on him. I would have let him declare war on the Soviets earlier and watched as the two vile regimes destroyed each other.

How can you even judge? I mean, we're looking back knowing everything that happened, while they could only know their past.

Adolf Hitler was an eloquent, well-spoken man, and no one considered him evil until after he was proven to have slaughtered millions of civilians.

What about the Night of the Long Knives (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Night_of_the_Long_Knives)? Yes, he was an eloquent, well-spoken man, but there were many undertones of his evil aspirations, starting with the assassination of his political enemies. And Mein Kampf wasn't exactly a bed-time story.

I would have never declared war on him. If by “Allies” you mean Britain, France and their smaller associates, that is. He only attacked those countries after they declared war on him. I would have let him declare war on the Soviets earlier and watched as the two vile regimes destroyed each other.
Hey, we were allied with Germany in 1939! It is conceivable that 'the two vile regimes' could have decided to fight together instead of fighting each other... Actually, it is an interesting 'what-if'.

Try to take off the 20/20 retrospectacles. Invading just because they eleected a right-winger would be unjustifiable, and impossible considering the state of Europe's militaries at the time.
Stop using this obsolete left-right system. I don't use it. Use the fricken political compass for goodness sakes.

Hey, we were allied with Germany in 1939! It is conceivable that 'the two vile regimes' could have decided to fight together instead of fighting each other... Actually, it is an interesting 'what-if'.
Both sides knew that that “alliance” was a load of temporary bullshit. They would never have fought together.

yeah
:eek: Oh no!
Will he come to the WM?

http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y223/GermanNightmare/Hitler-KommterzurWM.jpg
(German satire magazine)

Czechoslovakia. That would've been the best time, leave a powerful ally to fight Hitler with.

What about the Night of the Long Knives (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Night_of_the_Long_Knives)? Yes, he was an eloquent, well-spoken man, but there were many undertones of his evil aspirations, starting with the assassination of his political enemies. And Mein Kampf wasn't exactly a bed-time story.
But how much of that was openly transported into the public those days?

Don't forget that the nazis had brought everything under their control. Print media and radio (and nazi television).

Stop using this obsolete left-right system. I don't use it. Use the fricken political compass for goodness sakes.
I'm not saying that all right wingers are like Hitler. They're not. Reconsider my point, rather than being derailed by two words:

Try to take off the 20/20 retrospectacles. Invading just because they eleected a Nazi would be unjustifiable, and impossible considering the state of Europe's militaries at the time.

and impossible considering the state of Europe's militaries at the time.

What was wrong with the state of Europe's militaries at that time? Germany was burdened by the Treaty of Versailles, which restricted it to an army of at most 100,000 soldiers and no air force. The other armies of Europe could easily defeat Germany, especially considering how easy it was for Germany to overcome numerically equal (Poland) and better (France/Britain) armies because of their air force. Germany would have been extremely easy to conquer by almost any European power until 1937.

What was wrong with the state of Europe's militaries at that time? Germany was burdened by the Treaty of Versailles, which restricted it to an army of at most 100,000 soldiers and no air force. The other armies of Europe could easily defeat Germany, especially considering how easy it was for Germany to overcome numerically equal (Poland) and better (France/Britain) armies because of their air force. Germany would have been extremely easy to conquer by almost any European power until 1937.

Hell, the Czech army probably could have conquered Germany.

Tea time tomorrow should do nicely.

I would have never declared war on him. If by “Allies” you mean Britain, France and their smaller associates, that is. He only attacked those countries after they declared war on him. I would have let him declare war on the Soviets earlier and watched as the two vile regimes destroyed each other.

One regime would have survived, conquering the rest of Europe. Then, twenty odd years later, the USA would have been either nuked into submission or occupied until they surrendered. Hitler had plans for attacking and conquering the US, and I'm sure Stalin and his successors would have taken out the US as well, albeit perhaps at a slightly longer time than the Greater German Reich would have.

Britain wasn't ready for war, yet. That, and Hitler clearly wanted a war. That's why he kept making such unreasonable demands.

When the other guy really wants to start a war with you, chances are he's confident he'll win.

The delay served Britain well.

I likely would have waited even longer - until he invaded Belgium.

America handled the start of the war quite well. They were actively working with the Allies even before 1941, but were officially staying out of the war to protect their industrial capacity. Smart.

Though, they didn't handle the war in the Pacific that well. They got lucky at Midway, and that was the real turning point, there.

Both sides knew that that “alliance” was a load of temporary bullshit. They would never have fought together.
They did just that -- tearing Poland apart in 1939.

What was wrong with the state of Europe's militaries at that time? Germany was burdened by the Treaty of Versailles, which restricted it to an army of at most 100,000 soldiers and no air force.
Sorry, I forgot about the military limit from Versailles! D'oh!

Still, it would have been impossible to justify invading Germany just because they elected Hitler. Remember, in 1933 he did not start any wars, and had not killed Jews. There would be no legal reasoning, and the people of Europe didn't want another war.

The delay served Britain well.

The delay did not serve Britain well at all. By the start of the war, Britain's army consisted of only 500,000 soldiers. The only advantage that they had over Germany was in the early- to mid-thirties. After that, the German army dwarfed them. Their only chance to defeat Germany single-handedly was before 1937.

Germany occupies Czechoslovakia and annexes Memel (March '39)
Any earlier, and liberals would complain about invading such as nice country. Any later, and conservatives would complain about not invading the Nazi fuckers early enough.

The delay did not serve Britain well at all. By the start of the war, Britain's army consisted of only 500,000 soldiers. The only advantage that they had over Germany was in the early- to mid-thirties. After that, the German army dwarfed them. Their only chance to defeat Germany single-handedly was before 1937.

Actually, it gave Chamberlain precious time to build up the airfields, fighter/bomber squadrons and radar facilities that would come to protect Britain during the Battle of Britain. So it did serve Britain well in many aspects, just as it didn't in many others.

There would be no legal reasoning, and the people of Europe didn't want another war.

You're right -- declaring war on Germany before Hitler became very aggressive would have been political suicide. However, it would have been militarily feasible, seeing as how Germany's army was very restricted.

Germany occupies Czechoslovakia and annexes Memel (March '39)
Any earlier, and liberals would complain about invading such as nice country. Any later, and conservatives would complain about not invading the Nazi fuckers early enough.

What the hell are you going on about? Many 'Conservatives' didn't want to go to war, and actively cooperated with the Nazis. Many Liberals didn't want to go to war either. Get your facts straight.

Hell, the Czech army probably could have conquered Germany.
They had decent light tanks, and probably could match up in 1937 with germany

They had decent light tanks, and probably could match up in 1937 with germany

Yep. Czech army was one of the best in Europe, I believe.

Try to take off the 20/20 retrospectacles. Invading just because they eleected a right-winger would be unjustifiable, and impossible considering the state of Europe's militaries at the time.

An excellent point. We ain't the Oracle of Delphi, here. I partially agree with Skinny87: the hatred there was between the Nazis and the Soviets was powerful, but I don't know if I would have relied on that. As a policy maker, one wouldn't want to rely on the actions of either side as a solution to the risks either posed.

I'd make a case for invading when he sent troops into the Rhineland. It would be hard to believe the troops in the Rhineland weren't up to no good. I'm sure France would been the one declaring war, if it had happened then. If I'd been any of the other countries... maybe not.

The delay did not serve Britain well at all. By the start of the war, Britain's army consisted of only 500,000 soldiers. The only advantage that they had over Germany was in the early- to mid-thirties. After that, the German army dwarfed them. Their only chance to defeat Germany single-handedly was before 1937.

But they hadn't done anything yet, before 1937.

Actually, it gave Chamberlain precious time to build up the airfields, fighter/bomber squadrons and radar facilities that would come to protect Britain during the Battle of Britain. So it did serve Britain well in many aspects, just as it didn't in many others.

It did give time to build more planes and airfields, but the rate of construction was insufficient. With each passing day, the Luftwaffe was surpassing the RAF more and more in planes built. They were being outproduced on all fronts. At the rate German and British war production was going, from 1918-1937, Britain could defeat Germany militarily. From 1937-1941, Britain could manage to hold on to its territory against Germany. After that, Germany would win. Chamberlain, in reality, did very little to prepare for war. He thought it would be "peace in our time." While Germany was amassing an army and air force, Britain was reinforcing its own army at a trickle. They only started to get serious after the German declaration of war on Poland, when the British army more than doubled in size and their industry scrambled to produce planes, guns, and armor.

It did give time to build more planes and airfields, but the rate of construction was insufficient. With each passing day, the Luftwaffe was surpassing the RAF more and more in planes built. They were being outproduced on all fronts. At the rate German and British war production was going, from 1918-1937, Britain could defeat Germany militarily. From 1937-1941, Britain could manage to hold on to its territory against Germany. After that, Germany would win. Chamberlain, in reality, did very little to prepare for war. He thought it would be "peace in our time." While Germany was amassing an army and air force, Britain was reinforcing its own army at a trickle. They only started to get serious after the German declaration of war on Poland, when the British army more than doubled in size and their industry scrambled to produce planes, guns, and armor.

This is true. However....politics...Imagine if Hitler had been stopped in '37. How different the world would be...

But they hadn't done anything yet, before 1937.

Yes they did. They withdrew from the League of Nations, broke the Treaty of Versailles, and re-occupied the Rhineland (which could be construed as an act of war).

Yes they did. They withdrew from the League of Nations, broke the Treaty of Versailles, and re-occupied the Rhineland (which could be construed as an act of war).

But would withdrawing from the league of nations been enough to get a population damn tired of warfare back into uniform? It would have been difficult, if not impossible. I agree with you on the other two, however. Rearming, moving those arms to their borders... pretty suspicious for any country.

Yes they did. They withdrew from the League of Nations, broke the Treaty of Versailles, and re-occupied the Rhineland (which could be construed as an act of war).

By that time, I would have laid the smackdown on Hitler and his empire. :D

Yes they did. They withdrew from the League of Nations, broke the Treaty of Versailles, and re-occupied the Rhineland (which could be construed as an act of war).

I'd hardly count withdrawing from the League of Nations as reasonable justification.

And, I wouldn't have invaded Germany for the last two reasons because I think the Treaty of Versailles was grossly unfair, and largely a tool of French vengeance. The Rhineland was their territory.

Every time there was a major war in Europe, Germany got smaller and Poland moved west. I'm sure the residents of Danzig were really thrilled to be Polish.

If you were in charge of the "Allies" in the run-up to WWII, at which point would you have declared war on Germany assuming they would not cave in to diplomatic talks?
Assuming diplomacy would be guaranteed to not be the answer - as early as possible.
Pity is that you can never tell, and that's why one always waits with war until the very, very end.

This is too easy with hindsight

This is too easy with hindsight

Then why post?

Well, with benefit of hindsight and ignoring public opinion at the time I would have said 1935, when he remilitarised the Rhineland. By the time of the later events I dont think it would have been any better for anyone, possibly even worse, though possibly when Germany tried to get the Sudetenland. After then, France and Britain would probably have been worse off.

Taking account of the political mood at the time, lack of hindsight, and military realities... September 3rd 1939.

Assuming diplomacy would be guaranteed to not be the answer - as early as possible.

I don't mean that you should take into account that diplomacy would not appease Germany, but that in hindsight, diplomacy and appeasement was not enough, so you can't say that you'd never declare war on Germany because Hitler accepted complete de-militarization in exchange for a tasty cookie.

I would have sent Germany back to the Holy Roman Empire with Versailles just to see how things play out. If that's not an option though, Anschluss would be a nice start I guess.

When Nazi Germany occupied the Rhineland would be the time to send in forces to step on Hitler's ambitions.

Leaves disarmament talks. :sniper:

Leaves disarmament talks. :sniper:

Well, if he withdrew from the League of Nations, you wouldn't even need hindsight to know not to stake all your hopes on them. If I'm having arms talks, I want to be holding the other countrys arms behind their back to be sure I'm getting a good deal.

Well, if he withdrew from the League of Nations, you wouldn't even need hindsight to know not to stake all your hopes on them. If I'm having arms talks, I want to be holding the other countrys arms behind their back to be sure I'm getting a good deal.
The League of Nations wasn't like the UN today. It was even less meaningful, and Germany wasn't the only country to leave it (or not even join in the first place...).

That is true. Still, it was the most widespread multilateral organization of the time. Withdrawal isn't especially reassuring, even though I can see it's not as serious as I'd first thought.

Ideally I would have liked people to have listened to Wilson after World War I, rather than take as much from Germany that they could. I don't know if that would prevent the Nazis from taking power, but I think it would certainly help, and maybe make the German people less nostalgic for a glorious past.

As for the situation with Hitler, assuming I'm responsible for the country that I'm in charge of, I'd love to say that I'd declare war once he started breaking the Treaty of Versailles, but taking into account my own ideology, national support for isolationism, the economic situation at the time, and the lack of allies against a strong military power, I'd probably declare war when the British and French did, shortly after the invasion of Poland at the earliest, and at the latest when Japan attacked the US.

You're right -- declaring war on Germany before Hitler became very aggressive would have been political suicide. However, it would have been militarily feasible, seeing as how Germany's army was very restricted.
Also, casual anti-Semitism was much more acceptable in Europe and America in those days. People were not so alarmed by Hitler's early rhetoric.

Also, casual anti-Semitism was much more acceptable in Europe and America in those days. People were not so alarmed by Hitler's early rhetoric.
I wouldn't think Hitler's antisemitism bothered all that many people anyways. The reasons the Allies fought him were much more "realpolitik" than trying to save the Jews.

But I agree, it made propaganda much easier. ;)

I would have to say after he violated the Munich agreement and overran the remainder od czechoslovakia. After all that was a nation which was allied with Britain and France and which they betrayed at Munich (forcing them to surender the Sudentenland without a fight) and then not coming to the aid of that nation, though it was promised, should Germany violate the Munich pact.

Well, if he withdrew from the League of Nations, you wouldn't even need hindsight to know not to stake all your hopes on them. If I'm having arms talks, I want to be holding the other countrys arms behind their back to be sure I'm getting a good deal.

Remember the political mood at the time. The government did not stake it all on the disarmament talks. They didnt think much of them, but the public were more idealistic. They had recently been through what they saw as the worst war ever, and really believed that change could happen. They felt the talks could work, and just ignoring them would have been political suicide. Then there was the fact that no-one wanted a war in 1933. No one would have said that they should have declared war on Germany then. In fact there was no reason. "Oh no, they have withdrawn from the disarmament talks when they are about the most disarmed nation in Europe (at the time) and they have withdrawn from the League... wait... thats no reason to start a war". Germany had only been allowed into the league a few years previously anyway.

By 1935 there was a reason for war (rearmament), but most people thought Germany had been hard done by by Versailles, and didnt see it having a reasonable army as unfair. And again in the remilitarisation, and still people didnt see a reason for war (in fact, some Britains thought the next war would be against France with Germany as an ally... ok a very small number, but hey). Telling someone your going to war for them moving soldiers into parts of their own country... erm... imagine going to war with France because it sent troops to normandy... The public didnt understand why they should be worried, and even the leaders didnt feel there was a real reason to be worried. and people still didnt want war. Same with the Anchluss, and though the Sudetenland was more of a cop out to avoid war, but again, people believed that Hitler could be bargained with and just wanted to unite Germans. While all through the period (particularly after the start of the Spanish Civil War) more people were becoming convinced for the need of war, the majority still didnt accept it (though rearmament did start in 35).

The only thing that convinced people that war was necessary and inevitable was the invasion of the rest of Czechoslovakia, and at that time, it was best to delay war.

Basically, generalising wildly, in 1935 everyone was a pacifist, and by september 1939 no one was a pacifist. War couldnt have started before it did.

But as I said, with hindsight and ignoring the above, I would have said when Hitler remilitarised the Rhineland.

OH, and yes, as someone said, fighting WW2 had nothing to do with the Jews. It was simply to oppose Hitler's aggression, expansionism and militarism, and to defend (well... pretend to defend) a soveriegn nation.

I think with the re-occupation of the Rhineland. That was probably the best opportunity to stop him early on.

The most interesting question posed on Nation States for a while.

I'll just mention that in the 1930's a lot of people wanted a strong Germany to oppose the Soviet Union.

Also France ocupied the Rhineland in the 1920's after Germany broke the treaty of Versailles. So Germany actually was invaded after breaking the terms of the treaty. But nothing constructive come of it. The French lost money occuping a country that wanted them out and it drove the Germans more zenophobic.

The moment the Versailles Treaty was broken.
I'd consider the continued existence of Germany conditional on submissive obedience to that imposed treaty.

At the slightest sign of truculence: Vae Victis!

The moment the Versailles Treaty was broken.

Germany was invaded for breaking the treaty of Versailles. The fact that the occupation turned out to be so sucky for France is probably an important reason why no one tried much else until the invasion of Poland by Germany and the Soviet Union.

Germany was invaded for breaking the treaty of Versailles. The fact that the occupation turned out to be so sucky for France is probably an important reason why no one tried much else until the invasion of Poland by Germany and the Soviet Union.


4 words:

And again, and again.

I'd consider the continued existence of Germany conditional on submissive obedience to that imposed treaty.

At the slightest sign of truculence: Vae Victis!

Seconded! The moment I found out the Germans were building an air-force, I would have gone in with everything I had...political consequences be damned.

I agree. Really, you don't make laws for people to break. When the Germans started to toe the line, just send in a BEF and wham! No more Germany.

The whole reason that the british were not bothered by the violations of the Versailles treaty was that it was considered unfair, Versailles stipulations were largely at the insistence of France.

I personally would have delcared war when Austria was annexed, an independent country with hundreads of years of history, gobbled up without a word from the weak allies.

When Germany attacked Poland!

The first time they broke a treaty.


Question: Do you have the same opinion (i.e. taken the same action) if you were the current President Bush or President Clinton?

Poland attacked Germany first!
New Zealand declared war on Germany before Britain!
Some Maori Tribe declared war on Germany before New Zealand!:p

In hind sight I think I would declare war in March 1936, just think about all the millions of live's you would save.

Poland attacked Germany first!


Erm...? Germany claimed they were attacked first, but they werent.

Rhineland. Far too obvious that would've lead to war.

Here is a little background for people who are unfamiliar with the
French occupation of the Ruhr after the Germans broke the treaty of Versailles that I ripped off the internet:


"In 1923 German government was unable to pay the reparations required under the terms of the Treaty of Versailles. The French and Belgian governments responded by sending in troops to the Ruhr, the main centre of Germany's coal, iron and steel production.

The German people were outraged and Fritz Thyssen and other industrialists who had investments in the Ruhr, organized a passive resistance campaign. The French responded by bringing in their own workers to operate the mines and began arresting leaders of the resistance movement.

The occupation of the Ruhr led to a collapse of the German economy. There was massive inflation and large increase in unemployment. Germany was now unable to pay any reparations.

Charles G. Dawes, an American banker, was asked by the Allied Reparations Committee to investigate the problem. His report, published in April, 1924, proposed a plan for instituting annual payments of reparations on a fixed scale. He also recommended the reorganization of the German State Bank and increased foreign loans.

Gustav Stresemann, the German chancellor called off the passive resistance and began paying reparations again. The French and Belgian troops withdrew from the Ruhr in 1925."


EDIT: The Wikipedia entry seems better:


The Occupation of the Ruhr in 1923 and 1924, by troops from France and Belgium was a response to the failure of German Weimar Republic under Cuno to pay reparations in the aftermath of World War I.

Initiated by French Prime Minister Raymond Poincaré, the invasion took place on January 11, 1923, with the aim of occupying the centre of German coal, iron and steel production in the Ruhr area valley.

The occupation was initially greeted by a campaign of passive resistance, and a few incidents of sabotage (which the Nazis were later to portray as a myth of widespread armed resistance). In the face of economic collapse, with huge unemployment and hyperinflation, the strikes were eventually called off in September 1923 by the new Gustav Stresemann coalition government, which was followed by a state of emergency. Despite this, civil unrest grew into riots and coup attempts targeted at the government of the Weimar Republic, including the Beer Hall Putsch.

Internationally the occupation did much to boost sympathy for Germany, although no action was taken in the League of Nations in response to what was a clear breach of League rules. The French, with their own economic problems, eventually accepted the Dawes Plan and withdrew from the occupied areas in July/August 1925.

I wouldn't have declared war on Nazi Germany. I would have helped Germany. If the Allies didn't want a WWII, they shouldn't have been such jerks after WWI.

I wouldn't have declared war on Nazi Germany. I would have helped Germany. If the Allies didn't want a WWII, they shouldn't have been such jerks after WWI.

I assume you mean something like John Maynard Keynes plan for post world war one reconstruction and helping the Weimer republic become stable as opposed to helping Hitler.

You gotta be careful around here. Some people will automatically assume you're sympathetic to the Nazis if you're not careful.

I wouldn't have declared war on Nazi Germany. I would have helped Germany. If the Allies didn't want a WWII, they shouldn't have been such jerks after WWI.

The name...the sig...the post count...the post content...

Who's puppet are you? :)

EDIT: Join date actually makes him more of a lurker. :eek: :p

My question is; without using hindsight, how could you justify an early pre-emptive attack on Germany without becoming to much like what your fighting against?

I assume you mean something like John Maynard Keynes plan for post world war one reconstruction and helping the Weimer republic become stable as opposed to helping Hitler.

You gotta be careful around here. Some people will automatically assume you're sympathetic to the Nazis if you're not careful.

good point, in fact the Weimar republic was never supported by the allies as much as it should have been, in fact Hitler had his admirers in the UK and France (not just Mosely) in the same way many of the upper classes and military in UK/France prefered General Franco to the elected republican government during the spanish civil war.

I wouldn't have declared war on Nazi Germany. I would have helped Germany. If the Allies didn't want a WWII, they shouldn't have been such jerks after WWI.

Rather crude, but it's true. The Treaty of Versailles, and to a lesser extent the other Eastern European Treaties, (St. Germain and Trianon for example) virtually condemned Europe to another war, although it's much easier to say this in hindsight than in 1919 when it was signed.

With regards to Declaring war on Germany, I'd have done it with Anchluss in Austria, although she too had fallen into a Fascist dictatorship under Schuchnigg. But the fact remains the election was rigged, (here (http://www.biocrawler.com/w/images/thumb/2/21/250px-Stimzettel-Anschluss.jpg)) and union illegal.

Plus the fact, Austria is a really cool country :D

Rather crude, but it's true. The Treaty of Versailles, and to a lesser extent the other Eastern European Treaties, (St. Germain and Trianon for example) virtually condemned Europe to another war, although it's much easier to say this in hindsight than in 1919 when it was signed.

With regards to Declaring war on Germany, I'd have done it with Anchluss in Austria, although she too had fallen into a Fascist dictatorship under Schuchnigg. But the fact remains the election was rigged, (here (http://www.biocrawler.com/w/images/thumb/2/21/250px-Stimzettel-Anschluss.jpg)) and union illegal.

Plus the fact, Austria is a really cool country :D

And one with a distinct tradition of its own, Austria was first nation that the Nazi's took over hence why the allies should have taken a stronger stand

Rather crude, but it's true. The Treaty of Versailles, and to a lesser extent the other Eastern European Treaties, (St. Germain and Trianon for example) virtually condemned Europe to another war, although it's much easier to say this in hindsight than in 1919 when it was signed.

Mmm. I recall reading that some French guy said said in 1919 that it was not a peace, it was a ceasefire for 20 years. Which turn out to be exact to the year.

I assume you mean something like John Maynard Keynes plan for post world war one reconstruction and helping the Weimer republic become stable as opposed to helping Hitler.

You gotta be careful around here. Some people will automatically assume you're sympathetic to the Nazis if you're not careful.

No, I specifically mean helping Nazi Germany win the war. I am not sympathetic to the Nazis; I am sympathetic to the Germans. Ideally, I'd convince Hitler not to do the whole Holocaust thing, but that's unlikely.

PS: That post was mine. See below.

The name...the sig...the post count...the post content...

Who's puppet are you? :)

EDIT: Join date actually makes him more of a lurker. :eek: :p

That was my post, using a friend's account. He changed his sig, it used to be like mine. He's never posted.

To be completely honest, I think Nazi-German dominated Europe would have good for everyone. Except for Jews, Gypsies, disabled peoples and those who openly opposed it etc. But for the majority of people, things would have been good.

To be completely honest, I think Nazi-German dominated Europe would have good for everyone. Except for Jews, Gypsies, disabled peoples and those who openly opposed it etc. But for the majority of people, things would have been good.

Actually, it probably would have only been good times for people West of the eastern German border.

To be completely honest, I think Nazi-German dominated Europe would have good for everyone. Except for Jews, Gypsies, disabled peoples and those who openly opposed it etc. But for the majority of people, things would have been good.

Living a country with little political freedom, few if any civil rights and maintaining a military juggernaut.
Sounds like you support Bush.

Living a country with little political freedom, few if any civil rights and maintaining a military juggernaut. Sounds like you support Bush.

Indeed. Nazi Germany was just like the US under Bush -- there were no elections held and people didn't have any civil rights. All the evidence to the contrary is just a figment of your imagination -- the US isn't democratic at all and we actually speak German, not English.

When would *I* declare war? How about when I just got bored? :D

To be completely honest, I think Nazi-German dominated Europe would have good for everyone. Except for Jews, Gypsies, disabled peoples and those who openly opposed it etc. But for the majority of people, things would have been good.

Funny definition of good. Let's overlook little things like 10% of all Germans dying and 25% of all Poles dying and look at what happened to a country that experienced very mild facist rule, Spain. You think that happening to all of Europe would be good? Is this some sort of peak oil thing? Do you think that if Europe's economy had sucked for the past 60 years they wouldn't have used so much oil and Americans would be able to drive Hummers for a few more years?

Never?

Erm...? Germany claimed they were attacked first, but they werent.
Yeah i was going to mention that.

Poland attacked Germany first.

Funny definition of good. Let's overlook little things like 10% of all Germans dying and 25% of all Poles dying and look at what happened to a country that experienced very mild facist rule, Spain. You think that happening to all of Europe would be good? Is this some sort of peak oil thing? Do you think that if Europe's economy had sucked for the past 60 years they wouldn't have used so much oil and Americans would be able to drive Hummers for a few more years?
A 'Nazi Germany dominated Europe' would have meant that 10% of Germans wouldn't have died in the war, they didn't dominate and so they got decimated.

A 'Nazi Germany dominated Europe' would have meant that 10% of Germans wouldn't have died in the war, they didn't dominate and so they got decimated.

And your figure for dead Poles please? And also how they are going to enslave the Poles without taking any casualties? And if you say they're not going to enslave Poles then we're not really talking about Nazis, are we? We're talking about made up people.

And your figure for dead Poles please? And also how they are going to enslave the Poles without taking any casualties? And if you say they're not going to enslave Poles then we're not really talking about Nazis, are we? We're talking about made up people.
I never said anything about Poland because i didn't disagree.
If Germany had won quickly they wouldn't have lost 10 percent.
Poland got their arse handed to them by Germany and then Russia and then Warsaw rose up and got it handed again and Russia decided to sit on their hands.
Plus Germany went about 'clensing' Poles so it is no surprise they lost big.