How long does Poland last in 1939?

[SolomonW]

By 17 September, the Polish defences were broken, and they were
reorganizing their defences at the Romanian Bridgehead. It was felt that it
had a natural lines of defence against the German advance. The Poles had
much ammunition.


Say Russia does not invade Poland, how long does Poland last?

---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
http://www.avast.com

[Rich Rostrom]

Post by SolomonW
Say Russia does not invade Poland, how long does Poland last?

Maybe a week longer; maybe two weeks. Not more than that.

[GFH]

Post by Rich Rostrom

Post by SolomonW
Say Russia does not invade Poland, how long does Poland last?

Maybe a week longer; maybe two weeks. Not more than that.
--
The real Velvet Revolution - and the would-be hijacker.
http://originalvelvetrevolution.com

The Germans might have treated the parts of Poland that
the Russians got as a protectorate, like the Czech regions,
Alsace, and Lorraine.

GFH

[Stephen Graham]

Post by GFH
The Germans might have treated the parts of Poland that
the Russians got as a protectorate, like the Czech regions,
Alsace, and Lorraine.

That seems extraordinarily unlikely. Why would those regions be treated
any differently than the Generalgouvernement?

[GFH]

Post by Stephen Graham

Post by GFH
The Germans might have treated the parts of Poland that
the Russians got as a protectorate, like the Czech regions,
Alsace, and Lorraine.

That seems extraordinarily unlikely. Why would those regions be treated
any differently than the Generalgouvernement?

Why did the Germans keep the Czech regions, Alsace,
and Lorraine out of the Reich? Hitler said that
the people in Alsace and Lorraine were poor quality
Germans and poor quality French. He preferred poor
quality French. If you think I am wrong about these
lands, look at maps printed in Germany in the early
1940s. I have several; all show the boundaries of
the Reich. (You can buy maps like these on ebay.de.
They come up every month or two.)

Basically that reason -- Hitler wanted Germans in
the Reich, not a lot of non-Germans.

The idea of ethnic cleansing was very popular
in this era. Look at the major shifts of
populations by Germans and other nations --
Russians, Poles, Czechs, and many more.

Tens of millions were 'relocated', and survival
while being relocated was unimportant.

GFH

[Stephen Graham]

Post by GFH

Post by Stephen Graham

Post by GFH
The Germans might have treated the parts of Poland that
the Russians got as a protectorate, like the Czech regions,
Alsace, and Lorraine.

That seems extraordinarily unlikely. Why would those regions be treated
any differently than the Generalgouvernement?

Why did the Germans keep the Czech regions, Alsace,
and Lorraine out of the Reich?

That's not the question I asked, George, and you know it.

You were talking about portions of Poland. That is what I asked about.
Why do you think the Germans would treat Eastern Poland any differently
than they did the Generalgouvernement?

[Michael Emrys]

Post by GFH
Basically that reason -- Hitler wanted Germans in
the Reich, not a lot of non-Germans.

Right. So his plan for eastern Poland would have been to exterminate all
the Poles in that area who it would have been inconvenient to relocate
and would not have been healthy enough to make good slaves, then move
"pure" German settlers in. In other words, the same plan he had for the
rest of Poland, Russia, and Ukraine.

Michael

[GFH]

Post by Michael Emrys

Post by GFH
Basically that reason -- Hitler wanted Germans in
the Reich, not a lot of non-Germans.

Right. So his plan for eastern Poland would have been to exterminate all
the Poles in that area who it would have been inconvenient to relocate
and would not have been healthy enough to make good slaves, then move
"pure" German settlers in. In other words, the same plan he had for the
rest of Poland, Russia, and Ukraine.

History proves you are wrong. Hitler's plan
for eastern Poland was to give it to other
Slavs -- the USSR. In reality, that is exactly
what he did.

Did he have a 'Plan B'? Would he have invaded
Poland if the USSR had not become a 'partner' in
this change of Poland's status? How else could
Hitler have resolved the issues between Poland
and the Reich?

And while we are asking, what would Poland have
done if Great Britain had not supported Poland's
positions so strongly? Did Poland actually believe
the British guarantee of full support to defeat a
German invasion? And, finally, did Poland actually
believe they could win a war against Germany? A
lot of the Polish planning shows that they did.

Let's pretend is for children.

GFH

[Rich Rostrom]

Post by GFH
History proves you are wrong. Hitler's plan
for eastern Poland was to give it to other
Slavs -- the USSR. In reality, that is exactly
what he did.

In _your_ reality. Not the reality of actual history.

Hitler's plan was for Germany to gain _lebensraum_ by
expanding to the east. He expounded this plan at
great length in _Mein Kampf_, and in private
discussions with both Nazi cronies and senior German
generals.

The areas he wanted for Germany included all of
interwar Poland and most of the European USSR. He made
frequent references to Germany's need for the
agricultural land and mineral resources of Ukraine.

His 1939 deal to partition Poland with the USSR was a
purely tactical maneuver - to secure his eastern flank
(and get supplies of oil and other materials) while he
smashed France and Britain. That would secure his
western flank, after which he could then turn east and
strike the USSR.

In actual reality, that is exactly what he did.

[GFH]

Post by Rich Rostrom

Post by GFH
History proves you are wrong. Hitler's plan
for eastern Poland was to give it to other
Slavs -- the USSR. In reality, that is exactly
what he did.

In _your_ reality. Not the reality of actual history.
Hitler's plan was for Germany to gain _lebensraum_ by
expanding to the east. He expounded this plan at
great length in _Mein Kampf_, and in private
discussions with both Nazi cronies and senior German
generals.
The areas he wanted for Germany included all of
interwar Poland and most of the European USSR. He made
frequent references to Germany's need for the
agricultural land and mineral resources of Ukraine.
His 1939 deal to partition Poland with the USSR was a
purely tactical maneuver - to secure his eastern flank
(and get supplies of oil and other materials) while he
smashed France and Britain. That would secure his
western flank, after which he could then turn east and
strike the USSR.
In actual reality, that is exactly what he did.

But you forgot the time-line. First there was the
USSR-Reich agreement on Poland. Then, later, the
UK and France declared was on the Reich. That war
was not part of Hitler's plan; it was part of Lord
Halifax's plan. The French knew the war was a stupid
idea; it took the Brits several days to convince the
French to do sometime that stupid.

I would agree that neither the Soviets nor the
Germans were totally committed to a long term
peace.

GFH

[The Horny Goat]

Post by GFH
But you forgot the time-line. First there was the
USSR-Reich agreement on Poland. Then, later, the
UK and France declared was on the Reich. That war
was not part of Hitler's plan; it was part of Lord
Halifax's plan. The French knew the war was a stupid
idea; it took the Brits several days to convince the
French to do sometime that stupid.
I would agree that neither the Soviets nor the
Germans were totally committed to a long term
peace.

Yup - today is the 75th anniversary of the Nazi - Soviet pact and the
evidence is fairly clear that Hitler definitely DID desire war with
Poland (he felt the German army needed to be 'blooded') but hoped to
avoid war with the UK and France.

In all probability had the UK and France not declared over Poland you
would have quickly seen Romania and Bulgaria join the Axis - whether
Yugoslavia would would be a coin toss but the key point being that
Britain and France would lose credibility with the smaller European
states. I do not believe Spain or Portugal would be interested in
joining the Axis.

Finland probably goes as per our timeline but Estonia, Latvia and
Lithuania probably maintain their independence a bit longer. (Stalin
annexed them during the 1940 invasion of France when Germany, France
and Britain all had bigger fish to fry)

Belgium probably would have ceded their 1918 gains to Germany.

Germany would probably have tried to create their version of a 1940 EU
though I am skeptical a 'peaceful' Germany that had crushed Poland
could overcome their systemic economic problems without further war.

My guess is that a wider war probably WAS inevitable in this case with
further Italian adventures (Greece?) being a likely cause.

[Daniel Fraenkel]

Post by GFH
USSR-Reich agreement on Poland. Then, later, the
UK and France declared was on the Reich. That war
was not part of Hitler's plan; it was part of Lord
Halifax's plan. The French knew the war was a stupid
idea; it took the Brits several days to convince the
French to do sometime that stupid

Reverting for a moment to history "as it really was",
it is of some siginificance that the original
date set for the German invasion of Poland was
August 26, 1939 - (that is 75 years ago
to the day). Hitler postponed it only at the last
moment on account of Mussolini's hesitation
and the publication of the common defense pact
between Great Britain and Poland. That is the pact
had some deterrence potential - albeit very limited.
[Gerhard L. Weinberg, A World at Arms:
A Global History of World War II
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005), p. 35ff]
It is also of interest - as noted by several
contemporaries - that the news of the outbreak
of war was greeted with little enthusiasm by
the German populace - in marked contrast to the popular
enthusiasm at the outbreak of WWI.

Cheers
Daniel

[Mario]

Post by Daniel Fraenkel
It is also of interest - as noted by several
contemporaries - that the news of the outbreak
of war was greeted with little enthusiasm by
the German populace - in marked contrast to the popular
enthusiasm at the outbreak of WWI.

Obvious, in 1914 most people knew nothing about the war, in
1939 everybody but the younger knew what war was.

[Daniel Fraenkel]

Post by Mario
Obvious, in 1914 most people knew nothing about the war, in
1939 everybody but the younger knew what war was.

True, and yet not so obvious, considering
that much of the Nazi highly effective political
campaign - both before and after the Machtergreifung
- was based on the claim to rectify the purported
wrongs suffered by Germany in WWI. And then, the most
important issue: if the war was so unpopular
at the outset, how did the regime manage to
mobilize the support of the German masses for
its continuation and expansion?

[Michael Emrys]

And then, the most important issue: if the war was so unpopular at
the outset, how did the regime manage to mobilize the support of the
German masses for its continuation and expansion?

Very good question and one I don't have a compelling answer to, but if I
may offer some speculations, some points:

1. Germany was a very well organized police state. From an early stage,
the more vocally disaffected tended to disappear into concentration
camps. The less vocal took note of that and kept even quieter.

2. As long as Hitler was winning people were willing to go along. After
all, they were getting their share of the spoils of victory, and the
victories of the first two years of the war were heady indeed. Germany
was on a roll and only the wisest heads harbored any doubts.

3. Once the tide did begin to turn, there were more and more widespread
misgivings about the whole enterprise, but there were also growing
anxieties about the retribution that would be visited on them if they
lost. So the tendency was to hang together to defend the homeland.

4. Germany was still right up to the end a very well organized police
state. Until the final collapse it was not wise to oppose the regime in
any fashion whatsoever.

I don't doubt that there were more subtle factors also, such as the not
insignificant fraction of the populace who shared Hitler's dream and
were willing to sacrifice anything to realize it. And then there were
the opportunists, often losers who would never have been able to make
much of themselves in ordinary times, who saw Nazism as the golden ride
to the top.

Michael

[Daniel Fraenkel]

Post by Michael Emrys
Very good question and one I don't have a compelling answer to, but if I

History is famously more about asking questions than about providing
definitive answers..
I would second all of your points except the first: the repressive nature
of the Nazi police state had more to do with silencing opposition than with
mobilizing active popular support.
My own theory is that the regime exploited a strong
paranoid streak in the (pre-1945) German national psyche. This lent
itself very nicely to portraying even the most blatant and obvious war of
aggression as a desperate struggle for Germany's very survival. (This is my sense of Goebbels Sportballast speech of February 1943.)

<3. Once the tide did begin to turn, there were more and more widespread
<misgivings about the whole enterprise, but there were also growing
<anxieties about the retribution that would be visited on them if they
<lost. So the tendency was to hang together to defend the homeland.

I quite agree with this and would reinforce it.
The fear of retribution was indeed potent and
deliberately fomented by the Nazi leaders. It amounted to a calculated
burnt bridges strategy, centering on the complicity of
the German people as a whole in the atrocities perpetrated by the
Nazi state, first and foremost the holocaust.
It is interesting to note in this context that the massive air raids
conducted by the allies during the final stages of the war were
interpreted by the population as "Jewish retribution".

Daniel

[Daniel Fraenkel]

Oops! "Sportballast" = "Sportpalast"

[GFH]

Post by Daniel Fraenkel
And then, the most
important issue: if the war was so unpopular
at the outset, how did the regime manage to
mobilize the support of the German masses for
its continuation and expansion?

There was no way out. No way to end the war
without total surrender and elimination of
Germany as a nation. FDR had made that war
aim clear. One might well blame the war deaths
during the last 18 months of the war on FDR's
unconditional surrender announcement.

GFH

[Michele]

Post by GFH

Post by Daniel Fraenkel
And then, the most
important issue: if the war was so unpopular
at the outset, how did the regime manage to
mobilize the support of the German masses for
its continuation and expansion?

There was no way out. No way to end the war
without total surrender and elimination of
Germany as a nation. FDR had made that war
aim clear. One might well blame the war deaths
during the last 18 months of the war on FDR's
unconditional surrender announcement.

A monumental example of non sequitur.

If there was no way out but total surrender already by 1942, then the
blame of the casualties during the last 18, or 24, months of the war is
evidently on those who did not surrender, given that that was going to
be the only possible end.

But just for the sake of discussion, what should have been the
conditions of a conditional surrender? Leave that poor, misunderstood
statesman Hitler in charge? Do not bother the honorable German generals
with those irksome trials for their war crimes? Leave them a few of
their hard-earned conquests? Do not meddle with what was clearly an
internal German affair, i.e. the treatment of the few surviving German Jews?

[Michael Emrys]

There was no way out. No way to end the war without total surrender
and elimination of Germany as a nation. FDR had made that war aim
clear.

No, FDR's aim (and presumably Churchill's as well) was not the
elimination of Germany,
but of all traces of the Nazi regime. This could only be done if the
Allies had a totally
free hand in the governance of the nation.

One might well blame the war deaths during the last 18 months of the
war on FDR's unconditional surrender announcement.

You are overlooking another very important factor in the announcement of
a policy of unconditional surrender. And that was to convince Stalin
that the Western Allies were in to the finish, there would be no
separate peace with Germany. This was important because there were very
real fears that the USSR would enter into their own separate peace,
which would have completely upset the entire strategy of the war against
Hitler. Anything the Allies could do to forestall such an event was
thought to be worth doing.

And one other factor was not unimportant. The demand for unconditional
surrender was a clear, simple goal that would galvanize the Allied war
effort. This was important because in a war as monstrous as the Second
World War, the question of "What are we fighting for?" was always going
to be paramount at home and in the ranks.

Michael

[m***@netMAPSONscape.net]

Post by GFH

Post by Daniel Fraenkel
And then, the most
important issue: if the war was so unpopular
at the outset, how did the regime manage to
mobilize the support of the German masses for
its continuation and expansion?

There was no way out. No way to end the war
without total surrender and elimination of
Germany as a nation.

And yet Germany exists as a nation; seriously, Google it, and look at
a map.

Post by GFH
FDR had made that war aim clear.

Well, it didn't work out for him, did it?

Post by GFH
One might well blame the war deaths
during the last 18 months of the war on FDR's
unconditional surrender announcement.

One might well blame crop circles on the Little Space Brothers, too.

Of course; Hitler would have peacefully withdrawn his troops from Russia,
France, Poland, Norway, etc, if not for nasty FDR, right? Because, after
all, he was a man of peace, right?

Seriously, can you tell us which history books you're reading?

Mike

[Rich Rostrom]

if the war was so unpopular at the outset, how did
the regime manage to mobilize the support of the
German masses for its continuation and expansion?

Because the first year of the war was wildly
successful for Germany beyond anyone's expectation.

Poland fell in a few weeks.

Norway fell overnight in spite of the mighty
Royal Navy.

France collapsed in two months (this was _huge_).

Nothing succeeds like success. And these
victories were followed by the small but
spectacular victories of the Balkan
campaign and Rommel in Africa.

Then the _enormous_ initial success against
the USSR.

At this point, what average German would
doubt Germany's invincibility?

[Daniel Fraenkel]

Post by Rich Rostrom

if the war was so unpopular at the outset, how did
the regime manage to mobilize the support of the
German masses for its continuation and expansion?

Because the first year of the war was wildly
successful for Germany beyond anyone's expectation
Poland fell in a few weeks.
Norway fell overnight in spite of the mighty
Royal Navy
France collapsed in two months (this was _huge_)
Nothing succeeds like success. And these
victories were followed by the small but
spectacular victories of the Balkan
campaign and Rommel in Africa
Then the _enormous_ initial success against
the USSR.
At this point, what average German would
doubt Germany's invincibility?
The real Velvet Revolution - and the would-be hijacker.
http://originalvelvetrevolution.com

Indeed, but this is at best only (the first)
half of the complete story. Why did the German masses
continue to support the war effort and Hitler,
even after the tide began to turn with the
massive German losses in Russia (long before
Stalingrad), the US entry into the war,
El-Allamein, the Allied invasion of Italy,
the ever-intensifying bombardment
of German cities,etc. etc.


Daniel

[Rich Rostrom]

Why did the German masses continue to support the
war effort and Hitler, even after the tide began to
turn...

The war starts in 1939. Against all expectation,
Germany blitzes Poland, Norway, France, the
Balkans, and drives to the gates of Moscow.

They are stopped there, but it's a modest
setback; at the end of the Soviet winter
counter-offensive, Germany is still very
deep in Soviet territory. The USSR has
escaped destruction for the moment, but
that's all, it seems.

It's now early 1942. Germany resumes its
attack in the USSR, smashing up Soviet
troops again and driving east to Stalingrad.
It's not as spectacular as 1941, but it's
still pretty impressive. (The Soviets lost
hundreds of thousands of troops in Sevastopol,
eastern Crimea, and the Izyum pocket - each.)

Rommel wins a dazzling victory in Africa,
sending the British in rout to the gates of
Cairo - it seems.

Also, the U-boats are running wild in the
Atlantic, sinking 600,000 to 800,000 tons
per month

The tide seems to be running still in Germany's
favor.

A friend of mine once summed up the situation at this
point: Germany is at war with the largest nation in
the world, the USSR, the largest political entity in
the world, the British Empire, and the largest
economic power in the world, the U.S. Their allies are
a rabble of Balkan stooges and Italy.

And _they're_ _still_ _winning_.

Things start going south very soon after that: the
British counterattack at El Alamein, TORCH,
Stalingrad, Tunisia.

Has "the tide turned"? In retrospect, we see it did.
But "der Mann auf der Strasse" didn't see it yet. The
USSR was still in very deep trouble, and the record of
German military triumphs suggested that more dazzling
victories were in store, or at least possible.

And what was the alternative? The Allies had demanded
"unconditional surrender". What did this mean? It was
easy for the Nazi regime to declare that it meant the
total destruction of Germany.

Britain clearly hated Germany - its "terror bombers"
wreaked destruction every night. America hated
Germany. As the Nazis explained, its Jew-dominated
government supported Britain in everything, and in the
U.S. press there were discussions of how to obliterate
German industry forever, suppress the German language,
or control Germany's population. As for the USSR - it
was headed by a monster.

Germans had two choices - rebel against the government
that had brought them victories in order to surrender
to implacable enemies; or support the government and
fight on for the Fatherland.

The Nazi regime promised (and apparently delivered)
"_wunderwaffen_" to smash the Allies. (German
prisoners captured in late 1944 were convinced that
the V-1 and V-2 had laid all London in ruins.)

Even when victory is no longer possible, total
defeat may be averted.

is it surprising that Germans fought on?

[Stephen Graham]

Post by Rich Rostrom
Has "the tide turned"? In retrospect, we see it did.
But "der Mann auf der Strasse" didn't see it yet. The
USSR was still in very deep trouble, and the record of
German military triumphs suggested that more dazzling
victories were in store, or at least possible.

That's the important point. We know about May 1945. It wasn't obvious at
the time. Also remember that there was no freedom of the press, so the
flow of information was restricted. Spreading rumors or what could be
depicted as rumors was dangerous. Openly defeatist? Your neighbors would
disapprove strongly. Someone would turn you in. Everyone knows what
happens to those people. (Seriously, by the mid-1940s, there were a lot
of individuals who had served a term in a concentration camp and been
released. People knew what it was like and didn't want to wind up there.)

In general, the populace was willing to be convinced that things were
all right. The experience leading up to the Nazi regime hadn't been a
pleasant one. The new regime, while perhaps not what one would really
want, did a lot of popular things to obtain acceptance. And did a lot of
things to ensure that alternate opinions weren't acceptable.

As Rich pointed out, the early part of the war really went pretty well
as far as the general population was concerned. There wasn't the trauma
associated with World War One. Other people bore the costs of the war
for the most part. By the time it was clear that the war was really not
going well (late 1944), it was also clear that Germans were really not
popular with the rest of the world.

There's a fair amount of literature covering this. In addition to
discussions in any modern general history of the regime (Evans, Fischer,
Burleigh), there are works such as Robert Gellately's Backing Hitler:
Consent and Coercion in Nazi Germany that offer an in-depth study. Ian
Kershaw's The End: The Defiance and Destruction of Hitler's Germany,
1944-1945 is also well worth reading for insight into this.

[Rich Rostrom]

Post by Stephen Graham
As Rich pointed out, the early part of the war really went pretty well
as far as the general population was concerned. There wasn't the trauma
associated with World War One. Other people bore the costs of the war
for the most part. By the time it was clear that the war was really not
going well (late 1944), it was also clear that Germans were really not
popular with the rest of the world.

I have a book of WW II day-by-day miscellany,
which includes selections from internal Nazi
memos on national morale.

One of them summed up the popular attitude
over time:

1940 - We've won!
1941 - We're winning!
1942 - We're going to win.
1943 - We must win.
1944 - We cannot lose.

(There was another memo which reported the
following joke:

If a Party member recruits five new members, he gets
to resign from the Party. If he recruits ten new
members, he gets a certificate saying he was never in
the Party.

This was in 1943 IIRC.)

[John Dallman]

In article

Post by Rich Rostrom
I have a book of WW II day-by-day miscellany,
which includes selections from internal Nazi
memos on national morale.

That sounds interesting: could you post the title/author/publisher,
please?

John

[Rich Rostrom]

Post by John Dallman

Post by Rich Rostrom
I have a book of WW II day-by-day miscellany,
which includes selections from internal Nazi
memos on national morale.

That sounds interesting: could you post the title/author/publisher,
please?

_Tank war, 1939-1945_
Author: Janusz Piekalkiewicz


Poole, Dorset : Blandford Press ; Harrisburg, PA :
Historical Times ; New York : Distributed in the U.S.
by Sterling Pub. Co., 1986.

The book is one of a series, I think, the others
being _Air War_ and _Sea War_. This one focuses
mainly on armored operations in Europe.

It's in six-month sections. Each section has first
a stream of miscellany, all from contemporary sources:
news items (often from neutral sources), anecdotes,
orders, reports, and memos about tanks, and some off-
topic squibs, such as the memos mentioned above.

Then there is a historical account of campaigns in
the same period.

[John Dallman]

In article

Post by Rich Rostrom
The book is one of a series, I think, the others
being _Air War_ and _Sea War_. This one focuses
mainly on armored operations in Europe.

And all three are cheap second-hand: ordered, and thanks.

John

[Mario]

Post by Rich Rostrom

Post by Stephen Graham
As Rich pointed out, the early part of the war really went
pretty well as far as the general population was concerned.
There wasn't the trauma associated with World War One. Other
people bore the costs of the war for the most part. By the
time it was clear that the war was really not going well
(late 1944), it was also clear that Germans were really not
popular with the rest of the world.

I have a book of WW II day-by-day miscellany,
which includes selections from internal Nazi
memos on national morale.
One of them summed up the popular attitude
1940 - We've won!
1941 - We're winning!
1942 - We're going to win.
1943 - We must win.
1944 - We cannot lose.
(There was another memo which reported the
If a Party member recruits five new members, he gets
to resign from the Party. If he recruits ten new
members, he gets a certificate saying he was never in
the Party.
This was in 1943 IIRC.)

Italian political police under Fascism (OVRA) kept a strict
monitoring on people's attitude and sentiment and also
reported jokes about Mussolini.

There are books on that.

[SolomonW]

Post by Daniel Fraenkel
Why did the German masses
continue to support the war effort and Hitler,
even after the tide began to turn with the
massive German losses in Russia (long before
Stalingrad), the US entry into the war,
El-Allamein, the Allied invasion of Italy,
the ever-intensifying bombardment
of German cities,etc. etc.

Although I am now on memory, I remember during WW2, Joseph Goebbels ran a
poll of German popular opinion. Over time, it showed that the German public
opinion displayed a rather realistic view of the war. It showed at first
the Germans were very confident, but over time becoming pessimistic.

The primary reason that German public opinion supported the war effort was
fear of what Russia would do and nationalism. Interestingly even after
Hitler died the Germans supported the war effort to give time to allow
German refugees to escape the advancing Russian army.



---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
http://www.avast.com

[Michael Emrys]

Post by Rich Rostrom
France collapsed in two months

Six and a half weeks actually. Even better from the German point of view.

Michael

[Geoffrey Sinclair]

Post by GFH

Post by Rich Rostrom
Hitler's plan was for Germany to gain _lebensraum_ by
expanding to the east. He expounded this plan at
great length in _Mein Kampf_, and in private
discussions with both Nazi cronies and senior German
generals.
The areas he wanted for Germany included all of
interwar Poland and most of the European USSR. He made
frequent references to Germany's need for the
agricultural land and mineral resources of Ukraine.
His 1939 deal to partition Poland with the USSR was a
purely tactical maneuver - to secure his eastern flank
(and get supplies of oil and other materials) while he
smashed France and Britain. That would secure his
western flank, after which he could then turn east and
strike the USSR.
In actual reality, that is exactly what he did.

But you forgot the time-line.

No actually he uses the full time line, not an abridged
version.

Post by GFH
First there was the
USSR-Reich agreement on Poland.

Before that was the rearming of Germany, followed by
Austria becoming part of the Reich, then the Sudetenlands
which was supposed to be the end of border changes.

Then Hitler took the rest of Czechoslovakia and Memel
and ramped up rhetoric against Poland, along with
invasion plans. The British and French extended
guarantees to eastern Europe about no border changes
without consent.

Then there was the Nazi-Soviet pact, Hitler's attempt to
convince the world to do nothing when Germany invaded
Poland.

Post by GFH
Then, later, the
UK and France declared was on the Reich.

George wants us to believe Hitler was at some sort of festival
at the time. Rather than the UK and France stating before the
invasion they had guaranteed Poland's borders, then waiting
days before giving Hitler a chance to withdraw before war was
declared.

Post by GFH
That war was not part of Hitler's plan;

I do like the way the Hitler plan varies from day to day,
no plans for eastern Europe one day, (the leave Poland for
the Slavs idea) no plans for western Europe the next.

Post by GFH
it was part of Lord Halifax's plan.

George has a book to "prove" this. Every time he posts the
title along comes the reviews pointing out how bad the book
is, it simply erases the inconvenient parts of history.

Post by GFH
The French knew the war was a stupid
idea; it took the Brits several days to convince the
French to do sometime that stupid.

Actually it took the British several days to convince the British
government to declare war and the French were not going to
war alone.

Post by GFH
I would agree that neither the Soviets nor the
Germans were totally committed to a long term
peace.

With the Nazis very much the ones breaking the peace in
1939.

Geoffrey Sinclair
Remove the nb for email.

[Don Phillipson]

Post by GFH
But you forgot the time-line. First there was the
USSR-Reich agreement on Poland. Then, later, the
UK and France declared was on the Reich. That war
was not part of Hitler's plan; it was part of Lord
Halifax's plan. . . .

This revives the OP's theme of 10 or 15 years ago:

1. "War" does not mean invasion with guns but a piece
of paper sent by one government to another. Germany
invaded and destroyed Poland with no prior declaration
of war, while Britain and France sent the German government
an ultimatum threatening war. So this means Britain and
France initiated World War Two and Germany did not.

2. "Hitler's plan" (the ideas in the Fuehrer's head) explains
history in a way the archives do not. Chamberlain wrote
Hitler personally (twice) in the summer of 1939 saying the
UK would go to war if any country altered the current boundaries
of Eastern Europe. Hitler and his government ignored this
threat and thus told the truth when they later said they did
not intend war with the UK and the British declaration of
war was a big surprise to Germany.

[m***@netMAPSONscape.net]

Post by GFH
History proves you are wrong. Hitler's plan
for eastern Poland was to give it to other
Slavs -- the USSR.

Um, since he invaded the USSR just a couple years later, this doesn't seem
like a plan with any lasting value. Give it away, then take it back quickly
seems more like a contingency than a plan.

Post by GFH
In reality, that is exactly what he did.

Not sure his plan included the annhiliation of the Reich for this, though,
as you say, that is what happened.

Post by GFH
Let's pretend is for children.

OoooooK. Are we supposed to supply balloons?

Mike

[SolomonW]

Post by m***@netMAPSONscape.net

Post by GFH
History proves you are wrong. Hitler's plan
for eastern Poland was to give it to other
Slavs -- the USSR.

Um, since he invaded the USSR just a couple years later, this doesn't seem
like a plan with any lasting value. Give it away, then take it back quickly
seems more like a contingency than a plan.

The decision by Hitler to invade Russia was made later in 1940.

---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
http://www.avast.com

[John Dallman]

Post by SolomonW
The decision by Hitler to invade Russia was made later in 1940.

That was a question of timing, rather than an out-of-the-blue decision.
Communism had been portrayed as part of the conspiracy against Germany
from the very beginning of Nazism. The Ribbentrop-Molotov pact was a
major surprise to the rest of the world, and was seen by both parties to
it as a short-term tactic.

John

[SolomonW]

Post by John Dallman

Post by SolomonW
The decision by Hitler to invade Russia was made later in 1940.

That was a question of timing, rather than an out-of-the-blue decision.

I would disagree; Hitler was thinking in 1940 of whether he should or
should not invade Russia, he only made a decision in 1940.

Post by John Dallman
Communism had been portrayed as part of the conspiracy against Germany
from the very beginning of Nazism. The Ribbentrop-Molotov pact was a
major surprise to the rest of the world, and was seen by both parties to
it as a short-term tactic.

I agree with this.

Post by John Dallman
John

---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
http://www.avast.com

[m***@netMAPSONscape.net]

Post by SolomonW

Post by m***@netMAPSONscape.net

Post by GFH
History proves you are wrong. Hitler's plan
for eastern Poland was to give it to other
Slavs -- the USSR.

Um, since he invaded the USSR just a couple years later, this doesn't seem
like a plan with any lasting value. Give it away, then take it back quickly
seems more like a contingency than a plan.

The decision by Hitler to invade Russia was made later in 1940.

So "since he invaded the USSR just a couple years later", the "plan" to
give eastern Poland to Russia wasn't really much of a "plan", was it?

Are you claiming that Hitler was wandering along one sunny day in
1940 an was suddenly hit with an inspiration that made him drop all
his other plans?

Not real sure what your objection is...

Mike

[The Horny Goat]

Post by m***@netMAPSONscape.net

Post by SolomonW

Post by m***@netMAPSONscape.net
Um, since he invaded the USSR just a couple years later, this doesn't seem
like a plan with any lasting value. Give it away, then take it back quickly
seems more like a contingency than a plan.

The decision by Hitler to invade Russia was made later in 1940.

So "since he invaded the USSR just a couple years later", the "plan" to
give eastern Poland to Russia wasn't really much of a "plan", was it?

Given the volume of resources shipped to German from the USSR from the
fall of Poland through 22 June 1941 it wasn't quite so one-sided in
Soviet favor as you portray.

Post by m***@netMAPSONscape.net
Are you claiming that Hitler was wandering along one sunny day in
1940 an was suddenly hit with an inspiration that made him drop all
his other plans?

I've several times argued in soc.history.what-if that Hitler's entire
career culminated in 22 June 1941 and that it was actually now
happening made 22 June 1941 one of the happiest days in Hitler's life.

[The Horny Goat]

Post by SolomonW

Post by m***@netMAPSONscape.net
Um, since he invaded the USSR just a couple years later, this doesn't seem
like a plan with any lasting value. Give it away, then take it back quickly
seems more like a contingency than a plan.

The decision by Hitler to invade Russia was made later in 1940.

Within weeks of the end of the Battle of France and well before the
height of the Battle of Britain in fact. Am going by memory here but
could certainly look up the date of the Fuhrer order on Barbarossa
which would of course be the culmination of considerable planning
before that.

[Geoffrey Sinclair]

Post by GFH

Post by Michael Emrys

Post by GFH
Basically that reason -- Hitler wanted Germans in
the Reich, not a lot of non-Germans.

Right. So his plan for eastern Poland would have been to exterminate all
the Poles in that area who it would have been inconvenient to relocate
and would not have been healthy enough to make good slaves, then move
"pure" German settlers in. In other words, the same plan he had for the
rest of Poland, Russia, and Ukraine.

History proves you are wrong.

Actually the actions of the German government in the period,
the splitting of occupied Poland into an area to be settled by
Germans and the rest plus the long term plans for places like
the Ukraine shows Michael is quite right.

Post by GFH
Hitler's plan
for eastern Poland was to give it to other
Slavs -- the USSR. In reality, that is exactly
what he did.

Actually as is well known Hitler granted a whole lot of Poland,
Romania, the Baltic States and effectively Finland to the USSR
in exchange for Soviet support or at least inaction when Hitler
went to war against Poland. Later the Germans would take the
areas off the USSR.

The basic idea was for Germany to take Poland without ending
up in a war with anyone else. That failed.

Post by GFH
Did he have a 'Plan B'? Would he have invaded
Poland if the USSR had not become a 'partner' in
this change of Poland's status?

Put it to you this way George, Stalin saw Hitler wanted to
invade Poland, and extracted a whole lot of value for the USSR
in the process. Stalin had a long dislike of Poland dating from
the Red Army defeats in the early 1920's.

As long as the USSR was indifferent Hitler had his chance
to present the west with yet another action they could not
stop and so it is quite likely Hitler would have done ahead
with the invasion without an agreement with the USSR. He
had been agitating for an invasion for months.

After all from Stalin's point of view if Germany ended up in
a war with the western powers it was much less of a threat
to the USSR. Encouraging the Nazis to do stupid things
was useful for the USSR.

Post by GFH
How else could
Hitler have resolved the issues between Poland
and the Reich?

Negotiations, but then Hitler had stopped such activity
months before.

Post by GFH
And while we are asking, what would Poland have
done if Great Britain had not supported Poland's
positions so strongly?

Given the known attitudes of Nazi Germany and the USSR
basically the Poles would have fought at some point, Hitler
was not one to stop taking over places.

Post by GFH
Did Poland actually believe
the British guarantee of full support to defeat a
German invasion?

Actually Poland understood it was unlikely the western
allies could stop a German invasion of Poland, however
the Poles believed they could last longer and the allies
could do more quicker. It was understood Poland was
isolated.

Post by GFH
And, finally, did Poland actually
believe they could win a war against Germany? A
lot of the Polish planning shows that they did.

Actually Poland understood that in 1939 they could not
defeat Germany alone. Things like the code breaking
efforts going west were partly due to this understanding.

Post by GFH
Let's pretend is for children.

Which would make this about George's eightieth, not
second, childhood.

Post by GFH
From 2002 and 2005,

George you can explain why Hitler refused to let his
ambassadors to the UK and Poland return to their posts in
August 1939, after their regular consultations at home?
You can explain why the British ambassador to Germany
had already returned from his consultations in the UK?
You can explain why the terms Hitler wanted from Poland
were never presented to the British?

Note the lack of German ambassadors in key posts, under
orders from Hitler, the 9th for the ambassador to Poland, the
14th for the one to England.

You can explain what was so vital the Germany had to
use deadly force to resolve the issue then and there, plus
cut a deal with the USSR leaving the USSR with half of
Poland, the Baltic states and parts of Hungary and Romania?

Remarkable how the death squads started operating in
Poland in September 1939, plus the confiscation and
reallocation of property a short time later.

George, Chamberlains' statement to the house of commons
on 31 March 1939 was to the effect consultations were in
progress about the disputes of the day, while these were in
progress if any action clearly threatened Polish independence
and if the Poles felt it vital to resist such action with force
Britain and France would come to Poland's aid. No countries
were mentioned as being outside this declaration.

On 1 April Hitler, after reviewing the draft plans Keitel gave him
(after a request on 25 March) ordered preparations for an attack
on Poland to be completed by 1 September.

Preparation of the Anglo-Polish alliance was announced on 6
April, followed by British guarantees for Romania, Greece and
Turkey.

Switzerland declared an emergency and brought it's border
units to full strength on 24 March, the Dutch did the same thing
on 10 April.

On 23 April the British announced they would reintroduce conscription.

On 28 April Hitler denounced the naval pact with the UK and
the non aggression pact with Poland. The instructions to the
German embassy in Warsaw was no encouragement was to
be given to any Polish moves to reopen negotiations.

Germany denounced the non aggression pact with Poland
after the rejection of a Polish offer on March 26 of a joint
guarantee over Danzig and a customs free road and rail
link across the corridor.

Then there was the May 23 speech by Hitler to the
Generals making it clear their previous 6 weeks work on plans
for the invasion of Poland was for real, and would be done at the
first available opportunity.

There follows months of tortuous official and unofficial
diplomacy (Goering trying to undermine Ribbentrop
for example) against a background of Hitler mobilising
for war.

The Anglo-Polish alliance was signed on 25 August, the day
before the original German invasion date.

By the way all but one of Hitler's advisors stated invading Poland
would lead to war with Britain. Ribbentrop was the exception.

Oh yes, the "Lord Halifax did it" line is from one of those
histories that simply delete large parts of the historical
record, mainly Hitler's non peaceful intentions, to enable
people like George to indulge their preference for fiction.

Geoffrey Sinclair
Remove the nb for email.

[The Horny Goat]

On Tue, 26 Aug 2014 12:34:32 -0400, "Geoffrey Sinclair"

Post by Geoffrey Sinclair
By the way all but one of Hitler's advisors stated invading Poland
would lead to war with Britain. Ribbentrop was the exception.
Oh yes, the "Lord Halifax did it" line is from one of those
histories that simply delete large parts of the historical
record, mainly Hitler's non peaceful intentions, to enable
people like George to indulge their preference for fiction.

<sarcasm ON>
What you don't believe the German version of the Gleitwitz incident
where the Poles invaded German territory?
<sarcasm OFF>

[GFH]

Post by The Horny Goat
On Tue, 26 Aug 2014 12:34:32 -0400, "Geoffrey Sinclair"

Post by Geoffrey Sinclair
By the way all but one of Hitler's advisors stated invading Poland
would lead to war with Britain. Ribbentrop was the exception.
Oh yes, the "Lord Halifax did it" line is from one of those
histories that simply delete large parts of the historical
record, mainly Hitler's non peaceful intentions, to enable
people like George to indulge their preference for fiction.

<sarcasm ON>
What you don't believe the German version of the Gleitwitz incident
where the Poles invaded German territory?
<sarcasm OFF>

There seems to be a misunderstanding regarding
the difference between a German-Poland war and a
'world war', including France, the UK, and more.

War with Poland was going to happen if Hitler's
demands were not met:
1)A transit 'road' across the Polish Corridor so
traffic could go between the western and eastern
parts of Germany without Polish inspection, etc.
Rail was an absolute minimum and also a highway
was strongly desired.
2) Return of Danzig to Germany. Not strictly a
Polish question, as Danzig was under the rule of
the League of Nations. But Poland ran the port
and the police.

But what changed a war between two adjoining
countries into a world war? England wanted
to reduce Germany's power and reestablish its
power in (over) Europe. WWI had not done it,
so another war was needed. England wanted war
with Germany. Germany (and Hitler) did not want
war with the UK.

GFH

[Geoffrey Sinclair]

Post by GFH
There seems to be a misunderstanding regarding
the difference between a German-Poland war and a
'world war', including France, the UK, and more.

No there is complete understanding of the difference, since
people can count.

Post by GFH
War with Poland was going to happen if Hitler's

Actually by mid 1939 at the latest Hitler had very little
interest in a negotiated solution.

Post by GFH
1)A transit 'road' across the Polish Corridor so
traffic could go between the western and eastern
parts of Germany without Polish inspection, etc.
Rail was an absolute minimum and also a highway
was strongly desired.

And Hitler rejected a Polish offer about customs free
links.

By the way, once again, if the Germans were allowed
to move cargo through Poland without "inspection etc."
would the Germans grant the same rights to the Poles
etc. for cargo moving across Germany?

Post by GFH
2) Return of Danzig to Germany. Not strictly a
Polish question, as Danzig was under the rule of
the League of Nations. But Poland ran the port
and the police.

Actually George the local government ran the port and
the police, and it had been Nazi for years before 1939.
Hence the way troops were smuggled in before the
invasion. The Poles did have customs inspectors.

So if it was the League of Nations where was the
German representations to the league?

Post by GFH
But what changed a war between two adjoining
countries into a world war?

The attacking country deciding the allies of the attacked
country would not intervene.

Post by GFH
England wanted
to reduce Germany's power and reestablish its
power in (over) Europe. WWI had not done it,
so another war was needed. England wanted war
with Germany. Germany (and Hitler) did not want
war with the UK.

I presume the above is essentially the need to repeat the
fiction often enough in the hope those who understand it
is fiction start to die of laughter. Noted Hitler's attitude
to Britain, like the plans to attack it?

Noted how far Germany was ahead of Britain in
armaments in 1938/39? Noted the Munich agreement?

Meantime all the text from the post George ignores.

George you can explain why Hitler refused to let his
ambassadors to the UK and Poland return to their posts in
August 1939, after their regular consultations at home?
You can explain why the British ambassador to Germany
had already returned from his consultations in the UK?
You can explain why the terms Hitler wanted from Poland
were never presented to the British?

Note the lack of German ambassadors in key posts, under
orders from Hitler, the 9th for the ambassador to Poland, the
14th for the one to England.

You can explain what was so vital the Germany had to
use deadly force to resolve the issue then and there, plus
cut a deal with the USSR leaving the USSR with half of
Poland, the Baltic states and parts of Hungary and Romania?

Remarkable how the death squads started operating in
Poland in September 1939, plus the confiscation and
reallocation of property a short time later.

George, Chamberlains' statement to the house of commons
on 31 March 1939 was to the effect consultations were in
progress about the disputes of the day, while these were in
progress if any action clearly threatened Polish independence
and if the Poles felt it vital to resist such action with force
Britain and France would come to Poland's aid. No countries
were mentioned as being outside this declaration.

On 1 April Hitler, after reviewing the draft plans Keitel gave him
(after a request on 25 March) ordered preparations for an attack
on Poland to be completed by 1 September.

Preparation of the Anglo-Polish alliance was announced on 6
April, followed by British guarantees for Romania, Greece and
Turkey.

Switzerland declared an emergency and brought it's border
units to full strength on 24 March, the Dutch did the same thing
on 10 April.

On 23 April the British announced they would reintroduce conscription.

On 28 April Hitler denounced the naval pact with the UK and
the non aggression pact with Poland. The instructions to the
German embassy in Warsaw was no encouragement was to
be given to any Polish moves to reopen negotiations.

Germany denounced the non aggression pact with Poland
after the rejection of a Polish offer on March 26 of a joint
guarantee over Danzig and a customs free road and rail
link across the corridor.

Then there was the May 23 speech by Hitler to the
Generals making it clear their previous 6 weeks work on plans
for the invasion of Poland was for real, and would be done at the
first available opportunity.

There follows months of tortuous official and unofficial
diplomacy (Goering trying to undermine Ribbentrop
for example) against a background of Hitler mobilising
for war.

The Anglo-Polish alliance was signed on 25 August, the day
before the original German invasion date.

By the way all but one of Hitler's advisors stated invading Poland
would lead to war with Britain. Ribbentrop was the exception.

Geoffrey Sinclair
Remove the nb for email.

[Stephen Graham]

Post by GFH
War with Poland was going to happen if Hitler's
1)A transit 'road' across the Polish Corridor so
traffic could go between the western and eastern
parts of Germany without Polish inspection, etc.
Rail was an absolute minimum and also a highway
was strongly desired.

Because the current grant of unlimited access via road and rail across
Polish territory was so, so unfair.

Repeated deliberate mis-statements of the German demands doesn't make
them any more true than the last dozen times you've made this claim.

Post by GFH
2) Return of Danzig to Germany. Not strictly a
Polish question, as Danzig was under the rule of
the League of Nations. But Poland ran the port
and the police.

Let's stipulate that a different mistake was made in 1919. Danzig should
have just been turned directly over to Poland. No half-measures.

Post by GFH
But what changed a war between two adjoining
countries into a world war?

Hitler's miscalculation of what the stakes actually were. If he didn't
want a world war, he had a perfectly reasonable alternative.

Quit lying, George.

[Michele]

Post by Stephen Graham
Hitler's miscalculation of what the stakes actually were. If he didn't
want a world war, he had a perfectly reasonable alternative.

With regard to this, it's worth mentioning that France and Britain did
_not_ declare war on Germany immediately and with no further recourse,
on September 1, 1939. If they were the ones really really wanting a war,
they would have done so, no?

No, they issued an ultimatum. If Hitler did not want war with France and
Britain, he could, on September 2, recall his dogs.
He didn't.

Yes, that would have been a monumental loss of face and of internal
support, it would have cost money in reparations, it would have made the
Nazi regime shaky. But it would have avoided a world war.
Hitler didn't take that road.

[GFH]

Post by Michele

Post by Stephen Graham
Hitler's miscalculation of what the stakes actually were. If he didn't
want a world war, he had a perfectly reasonable alternative.

With regard to this, it's worth mentioning that France and Britain did
_not_ declare war on Germany immediately and with no further recourse,
on September 1, 1939. If they were the ones really really wanting a war,
they would have done so, no?

True. It took the British a couple of days to persuade the French to go along.

GFH

[Geoffrey Sinclair]

Post by GFH

Post by Michele

Post by Stephen Graham
Hitler's miscalculation of what the stakes actually were. If he didn't
want a world war, he had a perfectly reasonable alternative.

With regard to this, it's worth mentioning that France and Britain did
_not_ declare war on Germany immediately and with no further recourse,
on September 1, 1939. If they were the ones really really wanting a war,
they would have done so, no?

True. It took the British a couple of days to persuade the French to go along.

Ah yes, keep implying the British were the ones pushing for war.

You know like Chamberlain on 2 September in Parliament stating
Britain could not agree to the Italian Government Peace conference
idea unless Germany withdrew its troops from Poland. Britain was
consulting France as to a time limit, if Germany withdrew from
Poland things could be sorted out.

The cabinet had earlier decided on a more rigid time table in
which Germany would be given a definite time, midnight on the
2nd to accept withdrawal. Hence why both the cabinet and
the commons were not happy with Chamberlain.

Meantime the French Army was asking for as much time as
possible without a declaration of war so it could mobilise
without risk of air attack.

By midnight on the 3rd the British had decided to present a note
to Germany at 9 am on the 3rd, asking for an agreement to
withdraw troops, with an answer required by 11 am. The
French were told to decide their own timing.

At 5 am on the 3rd the British used the telephone to give the
message text to their ambassador in Berlin, so the Germans
could listen in if they wanted.

The French handed their note to the Germans at 12 noon
with a deadline of 5 pm on the 3rd for France to fulfill its
obligations to Poland on the 4th. Again the telephone was
used to send the text, at 10.50 am but the original deadline
was 5 am on the 4th. When the French ambassador called
to ask what to do if the Germans stalled him again the
answer was act if the answer was no, in this call the deadline
was revised to 5pm on the 3rd.

It is quite simple George, the British delay from the 1st to the
3rd has everything to do with persuading the peace faction in
the British Government that there was no further hope to peace
short of a Hitler back down and that it had to happen soon.

Chamberlain and Halifax were the ones trying for peace, which
I know your fictional history inverts.

Geoffrey Sinclair
Remove the nb for email.

[m***@netMAPSONscape.net]

Post by GFH

Post by Michele

Post by Stephen Graham
Hitler's miscalculation of what the stakes actually were. If he didn't
want a world war, he had a perfectly reasonable alternative.

With regard to this, it's worth mentioning that France and Britain did
_not_ declare war on Germany immediately and with no further recourse,
on September 1, 1939. If they were the ones really really wanting a war,
they would have done so, no?

True. It took the British a couple of days to persuade the French to go along.

And they wanted a war SO much, they immeditately set upong Germany's western
borders and attacked, right?

Mike

[Michele]

Post by GFH

Post by Michele

Post by Stephen Graham
Hitler's miscalculation of what the stakes actually were. If he didn't
want a world war, he had a perfectly reasonable alternative.

With regard to this, it's worth mentioning that France and Britain did
_not_ declare war on Germany immediately and with no further recourse,
on September 1, 1939. If they were the ones really really wanting a war,
they would have done so, no?

True. It took the British a couple of days to persuade the French to go along.
GFH

The date is one important detail.

The other, which you very understandably ignored given your agenda, is
that it was not a declaration of war with no recourse. It was an
ultimatum. Germany could avoid war with Britain and France altogether,
if they so chose. They would only have needed to move out of Danzig and
Poland.

The Germans did not. They were more than willing to have war with
Britain and France, therefore.

Try to face the facts above.

[Dave Smith]

Post by Michele
The other, which you very understandably ignored given your agenda, is
that it was not a declaration of war with no recourse. It was an
ultimatum. Germany could avoid war with Britain and France altogether,
if they so chose. They would only have needed to move out of Danzig and
Poland.
The Germans did not. They were more than willing to have war with
Britain and France, therefore.
Try to face the facts above.

I think the problem was that they Nazi Germans were arrogant enough to
be surprised that Britain would stand by it's word about further
expansion and further violations of the Treaty of Versailles.

Dave Smith

[Michele]

Post by Dave Smith

Post by Michele
The other, which you very understandably ignored given your agenda, is
that it was not a declaration of war with no recourse. It was an
ultimatum. Germany could avoid war with Britain and France altogether,
if they so chose. They would only have needed to move out of Danzig and
Poland.
The Germans did not. They were more than willing to have war with
Britain and France, therefore.
Try to face the facts above.

I think the problem was that they Nazi Germans were arrogant enough to
be surprised that Britain would stand by it's word about further
expansion and further violations of the Treaty of Versailles.

Naturally the bet was that the British and the French would back off
like the French had done with the Czechs.

But once they presented their ultimatum? Then the bet became that they
wouldn't actually declare war.

And when they did? The bet became they wouldn't really wage war.

In short, at every step the Germans wanted to delude themselves into
thinking that things would go their way, but in order to do that they
had to be willing to risk that things would not be so pliable. In other
words, they were perfectly willing to risk that the British and French
would make war. That means being willing to be at war with the British
and the French.
Which the Germans certainly were.

Note the eerie similarities with 1914, when the Germans bet that Belgium
would not object to the invasion, and they also bet that the British
would not object to the violation of Belgian neutrality.

And now, decades later, Germany fans still claim that since the
delusional, wishful-thinking calculations of the German decision makers
were exactly that, i.e. utterly wrong - then it must be the fault of the
other party, who did what they had said they would do.
It takes some creative-selective thinking.

[m***@netMAPSONscape.net]

Post by Michele

Post by Dave Smith

Post by Michele
The other, which you very understandably ignored given your agenda, is
that it was not a declaration of war with no recourse. It was an
ultimatum. Germany could avoid war with Britain and France altogether,
if they so chose. They would only have needed to move out of Danzig and
Poland.
The Germans did not. They were more than willing to have war with
Britain and France, therefore.
Try to face the facts above.

I think the problem was that they Nazi Germans were arrogant enough to
be surprised that Britain would stand by it's word about further
expansion and further violations of the Treaty of Versailles.

Naturally the bet was that the British and the French would back off
like the French had done with the Czechs.
But once they presented their ultimatum? Then the bet became that they
wouldn't actually declare war.
And when they did? The bet became they wouldn't really wage war.

Which was sort of true; they didn't really come to the aid of Poland, and
after it fell, didn't do much in the way of fighting Germany.

Then, of course, the Nazis decided to take up the Western Europeans on their
declaration on their on initiative (which, if Germany didn't want hostilities
with the UK and France, was an odd thing to do.)

Mike

[The Horny Goat]

Post by m***@netMAPSONscape.net

Post by Michele
Naturally the bet was that the British and the French would back off
like the French had done with the Czechs.
But once they presented their ultimatum? Then the bet became that they
wouldn't actually declare war.
And when they did? The bet became they wouldn't really wage war.

Which was sort of true; they didn't really come to the aid of Poland, and
after it fell, didn't do much in the way of fighting Germany.
Then, of course, the Nazis decided to take up the Western Europeans on their
declaration on their on initiative (which, if Germany didn't want hostilities
with the UK and France, was an odd thing to do.)

In fairness even if Hitler had had any intention of peacefully
withdrawing from Poland after 1 September from a staff point of view
it would have been a difficult proposition to turn the troops around
and go home.

On the other hand, given the aggressive moves employed by Britain and
France in September / October 1939 against Germany (!) is there any
doubt a quick peace could have been obtained even if the Germans were
still on Polish territory but clearly withdrawing?

So while Giwer correctly reminds us continually that it was Britain
and France that declared war on Germany and not vice versa, it's even
more clear that (1) there would have been no declaration in the first
place had Germany not entered Poland and (2) Hitler could have had
peace EVEN AFTER INVADING POLAND had he quickly withdrawn even after
doing great damage to the Polish army.

As they say in this newsgroup that would definitely have required a
Hitlerian brain transplant as Hitler had been saying at least as far
back as Mein Kampf about what he intended to do to the Soviet Union
and the ONLY way to do that not involving the destruction of Poland
would have been with Poland as Nazi allies and that was simply not on.

[The Horny Goat]

Post by Michele

Post by Dave Smith
I think the problem was that they Nazi Germans were arrogant enough to
be surprised that Britain would stand by it's word about further
expansion and further violations of the Treaty of Versailles.

Naturally the bet was that the British and the French would back off
like the French had done with the Czechs.
But once they presented their ultimatum? Then the bet became that they
wouldn't actually declare war.
And when they did? The bet became they wouldn't really wage war.

Hitler definitely wanted war in Aug/Sept 1939 - the only real
historical question is which war. In his Table Topic books he said he
wanted to German Army to be 'blooded' more than once and that he
deeply feared a second Munich type conference.

I suspect he would have been quite happy with a war vs Poland alone
that did not involve the UK and France but this seems rather unlikely
after his move on what was left of Czechoslovakia in the spring of
1939. Basically the view in London was that they thought they had
bought 'Peace For Our Time' ... and then had Hitler swallow up the
rest of the country which made further conferences involving
territorial cessions unlikely.

Even my grandmother (who in 1939 was a 30-something housewife in
Canada) and her friends thought that war was inevitable after the
occupation of Prague - yet with 70 years hindsight we tend to forget
what a cathartic moment that was in London and Paris since the powers
that be knew then beyond all doubt that the Munich agreement had been
a complete failure that hadn't even lasted 6 months.

[Bill]

On Thu, 11 Sep 2014 10:40:13 -0400, GFH <***@ankerstein.org>
wrote:

England wanted war

Post by GFH
with Germany. Germany (and Hitler) did not want
war with the UK.

Keep taking the tablets...

[Michele]

Post by GFH

Post by The Horny Goat
On Tue, 26 Aug 2014 12:34:32 -0400, "Geoffrey Sinclair"

Post by Geoffrey Sinclair
By the way all but one of Hitler's advisors stated invading Poland
would lead to war with Britain. Ribbentrop was the exception.
Oh yes, the "Lord Halifax did it" line is from one of those
histories that simply delete large parts of the historical
record, mainly Hitler's non peaceful intentions, to enable
people like George to indulge their preference for fiction.

<sarcasm ON>
What you don't believe the German version of the Gleitwitz incident
where the Poles invaded German territory?
<sarcasm OFF>

There seems to be a misunderstanding regarding
the difference between a German-Poland war and a
'world war', including France, the UK, and more.
War with Poland was going to happen if Hitler's

Naah. War with Poland was going to happen in any case, since it was the
door to the Ukrainan rich soil lands which Hitler wanted to colonize.

"Danzig is not the object we're dealing with. The object is our
Lebensraum in the East" (A. Hitler)

As to the difference between a German-Polish war and a war of German
against Poland, France and Britain, dude, the three countries had a
defensive alliance. You attack one, you are at war with all of them.
Even a boy would understand that - especially if he was a boy in 1939,
i.e. just 25 years after the chain of DoWs of 1914.

[Michael Emrys]

England wanted war with Germany. Germany (and Hitler) did not want
war with the UK.

(I mistakenly sent my reply directly to George and he answered me in the
same way. I reproduce my original reply here. I omit nothing in both my
reply and his.

Michael)

England wanted war with Germany.

It's hard to imagine a more transparently false statement in light of

the whole history of this era and crisis.

Germany (and Hitler) did not want war with the UK.

Do you not know what a defensive alliance is and what it entails,
George? It seems that Hitler your hero did not.

Certainly not, but he made rational decisions
on the facts as he saw them. The desire (actually
the need) for a corridor across the Polish Corridor
was reasonable. Poland had created a new Baltic
port -- Gdynia -- to avoid any problem with a return
of Danzig to Germany. Danzig was NOT part of Poland.

The UK and France had
committed themselves to come to Poland's aid in the case that it was
attacked. It was and they did. Nothing particularly unusual in that.

Why? Love of Poland? If you believe that, you are beyond
......

Hitler in his supreme arrogance gambled that the Allies would chicken
out at the last moment because they had previously leaned over
backwards to avoid war (c.f. the Rhineland, Anschluss, the
Sudetenland), but this time they showed some backbone and Hitler and
Germany lost that bet.

Hitler was 100% sure that despite the promises you mention above, there
was nothing either the UK or France could do to prevent, even slow down,
Germany's defeat of Poland. Sort of like the USA promises to the Ukraine.
But the USA does not want war with Russia; the English did want war with
Germany.

As a result of the two World Wars -- really one war with a pause, like
the English and French during the Napoleonic War(s) -- both the UK and
France are second rate powers (at best) and Germany is the first power
in Europe. Who won? Do you call that winning?

GFH

[Roman W]

What could Poland have done differently to defend itself longer or
better? Would it have any impact on the course of the war?

RW

[Michele]

Post by Roman W
What could Poland have done differently to defend itself longer or
better? Would it have any impact on the course of the war?
RW

Difficult question.

The Poles did not want to give up any border region without a fight. The
reason was twofold. On the one hand, _we_ know Germany was going to
occupy two-thirds of Poland, _now_; but at the time, it could not be
ruled out that they might just take Danzig, or Danzig and the corridor.
If the Polish armed forces had just given that up, what then? The other
reason is the wording of the Anglo-Polish alliance treaty. The British
would only intervene if the Poles actually fought, not otherwise.

Thus this rules out the more cautious choice of deploying all the troops
on interior positions, wherever possible behind rivers (which were
however not much of an obstacle at the end of the summer, and even less
so that summer).

An alternative would have been to use only token forces to oppose German
operations in the border areas, and deploy most of the troops on those
position farther in. But it's not as if the Polish army had divisions to
throw away. Even a token force would be a significant subtraction from
the overall amount.

An easy change to our history would have been keeping the army HQ in
Warsaw no matter what. The Polish army already had very poor C3, sending
the HQ away from the one comms center they had meant making it worse
than irrelevant (worse, because it kept issuing orders - which given to
the delay lag were always hopelessly outdated).

Another feasible change - but one which would have enraged the French -
would have been to ignore their entreaties and mobilize on schedule.
That would have reduced the number of divisions that began the war
incomplete, not just because of a lack of resources but because those
resources were still in transit - i.e., under German bombing on trains.

[m***@netMAPSONscape.net]

Post by GFH
But what changed a war between two adjoining
countries into a world war?

Treaties

Mike

[Michele]

Post by m***@netMAPSONscape.net

Post by GFH
But what changed a war between two adjoining
countries into a world war?

Treaties

of which Germany was so damn fully aware that they postponed the
beginning of the hostilities by one week after the British guarantee was
followed up with a full military alliance, and that they went ahead with
their war of aggression after having made another treaty, of their own,
with the Soviet Union.