Notices
Results 1 to 80 of 80
Like Tree20Likes
  • 2 Post By kojax
  • 1 Post By i_feel_tiredsleepy
  • 1 Post By grmpysmrf
  • 1 Post By Lynx_Fox
  • 1 Post By John Galt
  • 2 Post By John Galt
  • 1 Post By YangYin
  • 1 Post By Stargate
  • 1 Post By Dywyddyr
  • 1 Post By Trivium
  • 1 Post By danhanegan
  • 1 Post By John Galt
  • 1 Post By John Galt
  • 1 Post By grmpysmrf
  • 1 Post By dan hunter
  • 1 Post By YangYin
  • 1 Post By kojax
  • 1 Post By Trivium

Thread: Conjecture: What could have prevented WW2

  1. #1 Conjecture: What could have prevented WW2 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    29
    My History teacher recently set us a project relating to possible chain of events that could have staved off or even stopped WW2 in Europe. I had done a small write-up on it and before I expanded on it I wanted to hear some of you guys comments' and ideas on it. Any ideas are welcome, as long as they are not of kind, 'Assassinate Hitler', or 'Sack Neville Chamberlain' kind of retarded ideas.

    1. The League of Nations could have done better
    The League of Nations was initially formed with the noble ideal of promoting world peace. However, even before the onset of WW2, it proved that its members were more interested in their own self-interests rather than enforcing peace.

    For example, during the Italian invasion of Abyssinia (now called Ethiopia), the Italians wanted to conquer it against the backdrop of a failed Italian invasion in the 1800s and to exploit the people and its resources. Britain could have stopped the Italian invasion by barring the the Italian Navy from using the Suez Canal which it controlled. However it refused to do it as it thought it would lead to war which it had no stomach for.

    This made the League of Nations look weak and emboldened Hitler as he knew that the League of Nations would not do anything if he broke the Treaty of Versailes.


    2.Policy of Appeasement
    The Policy of Appeasement which Nevile Chamberlain was best known for was counter-productive. By appeasing and giving in to Hitler's demands, he was emboldened which eventually led to WW2 when he miscalculated that the Allies would not go to war with Germany over Poland.

    For example, had the Munich Agreement not be signed, and the Sudentenland and Czechoslovakia left intact, Germany would think twice about engaging in a two-front war with a well-equipped and trained Czech army and Sudentenland defenecs, and French and Britsih on the other side. WW1 had shown that Germany could not win a two-front war, and Hitler would have known better that to have tried to do so.

    Without appeasement, WW2 in Europe could have been avoided.

    3. Death of Gustav Stresman and Great Depression
    These events led to the flourishing of the right-wing movement in Germany which Hitler skillfully exploited to allow the Nazi Party to come to power. The Weimar Republic lost a capable leader in Gustav Stresaman who died in 1928 before the Great Depression.

    Without his effective and capable leadership, the Weimar Republic was unable to effectively lead Germany out of the Great Depression and was ousted from power eventually. If the Weimar Republic was strong with an effective leader like Gustav to lead them, it was possible that Hitler would not have his chance at power.

    4. Section on ultimate fate of Hitler
    My History Professor also required a section regarding the hypothetical ultimate fate of Hitler had critical events like those happened above worked about to staving off WW2.

    To think an ambitious and ultra-nationalistic guy like Hitler retreating quietly into ignominy would have been impossible. But Hitler would be like a fish out of water, his skills and charismatic abilities ill-equipped to take advantage of such a situation. I believe that perhaps Hitler and his Nazi Party will continue to keep a small number of seats in the Reichstag, but never popular enough to have a majority. Hence, none of Hitler's policies could not have been implemented with more sane people around.

    That's all folks. Note: I am not asking people to help me with my project, just give some feedback or ideas will do.


    Science is a mountain of theories based on a molehill of facts.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    128
    Hmmm, maybe my comment is not very to you question.

    I think earlier or later the WW2 would be certain to take place in Europe.

    Why?
    (I ignore Italy, for it's not a very important role in WW2(at least when comes to military))
    Germany already got a stronger economy and military system before Hitler became the leader. While Britain, France and Poland which were strongest country(economy and military) at that time, were still in the recover-time of WW1.
    Germany lost so much in WW1. While the League of Nations got too much in WW1. In the war Germany had nothing to lose anymore, while the League of Nations should pay more to take care of their wealth.
    Germans were hostile to Britain etc., and they thought they didn't lost WW1 so they didn't need to pay for the lose. While the others were afraid of Germany.

    So, the condition were like this, a muscle-too-big man bear in mind for his unfortunate event some days ago while his rival has just leave hospital and is afraid of that man.
    The muscle man is surely to beat the other one.
    Without Hitler or somebody else, the WW2 still would be there.
    To stop WW2, you need to stop WW1 first.
    That is really complicate.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3 Re: Conjecture: What could have prevented WW2 
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Quote Originally Posted by Cytosine12
    1. The League of Nations could have done better
    The League of Nations was initially formed with the noble ideal of promoting world peace. However, even before the onset of WW2, it proved that its members were more interested in their own self-interests rather than enforcing peace.

    This made the League of Nations look weak and emboldened Hitler as he knew that the League of Nations would not do anything if he broke the Treaty of Versailes.
    Kind of like the UN today.

    In a world of nations that solve their economic problems by beating the needed resources out of others. (Kind of like the USA and Iraq), it's unrealistic to expect too much cooperation.


    2.Policy of Appeasement
    The Policy of Appeasement which Nevile Chamberlain was best known for was counter-productive. By appeasing and giving in to Hitler's demands, he was emboldened which eventually led to WW2 when he miscalculated that the Allies would not go to war with Germany over Poland.

    For example, had the Munich Agreement not be signed, and the Sudentenland and Czechoslovakia left intact, Germany would think twice about engaging in a two-front war with a well-equipped and trained Czech army and Sudentenland defenecs, and French and Britsih on the other side. WW1 had shown that Germany could not win a two-front war, and Hitler would have known better that to have tried to do so.
    It depends how you look at it. It was a way of forcing Germany to commit a diplomatic blunder. Hitler had agreed to something everyone knew he wasn't going to do, but by breaking the agreement he'd have to effectively declare war on a lot of people at once. Outside of Italy and Japan, this made it nearly impossible for Hitler to find allies once he began his actual campaign.

    Imagine if the "Axis" had more members. Maybe some other countries would have sided with Germany to join in the territorial expansionism. Before Germany declared war on Russia, Joseph Stalin probably would have considered it. We may have Neville Chamberlain to thank for the fact that didn't happen.



    Without appeasement, WW2 in Europe could have been avoided.
    Or worsened. Appeasement, when used properly, is a diplomatic tool. It's not about motivating the appeased party to stop being aggressive, not at all. If you do it right, you're marking them as the "bad guy" so nobody will want to join their team. They'll want to join yours instead. The more clearly you make the case that they need to be stopped, the faster you gain support, and the more support you get. Hitler was notoriously stupid in this area, or else he probably would have won WW2, instead of losing.

    Ask yourself what matters more: Summoning a larger army than your enemy can summon, or giving up a territory like Czechoslovakia?
    danhanegan and dan hunter like this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    266
    on a seperate issue then the politics, world war one made world war two inevitable, so the issue is the first war. To have prevented the 1st war we would literally have to change the culture of europe. Despite any of the politics the people were clamouring for war, they wanted it on both sides, i would not know how to change grass roots like that.

    check out the book rites of spring, its a little unorthodox but is a great read
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard icewendigo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,148
    Despite any of the politics the people were clamouring for war
    I would say the rulers, bankers and industrialists wanted war, but I dont think the "people" wanted war (though they may have been brainwashed by the former).

    If each country had laws that mandated in the event of war for all the politicians, nobility, industrial magnates and bankers to be given a tin hat and a rifle and be on the front line to run towards a hail of machine gun fire, my bet is there would not have been war. Its always easier to fight to the last drop of other people's blood.

    Also if sacrifices are to be asked of people, asking them to give up their lives if need be, then all private ventures, corporations and enterprises should sacrifice 100% of any profits derived from the war all of which should be use to finance the war.

    Reading War is a Racket offers another perspective on wars.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    240
    Icewendigo, you do know that trains departing with troops from cities all across Europe had masses of civilians outside sending off the troops with great pageantry and whatnot, right? There was massive, popular appeal for WW1 in almost every country at the beginning as many though that the war would be a nice, tidy affair, done by christmas, and everyone could have a good lark about the wonderful adventure and asskicking they unleashed upon the foe. which didnt happen.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    In Germany, I think a lot of people were hoping for the steady employment. Hitler had promised to make the status of a soldier into a respected status, which would have been the perfect opposite of a lot of Germans' economic circumstances at the time.

    So, that tin hat and rifle was actually a step up for a lot of people.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    266
    The french people before World War One had a personal axe to grind with the german empire and in the east the nationalist movements were beyond any control. and the english peopel were exicted at teaching the barvaric germans the proper way to fight. This cultural atmosphere is mostly ignored by popular accounts after the war, historian never forgot it though, and it really was the only cause of World War One that resonated the large mass of europe, where they were a force and not an object acted on.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    New Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    3
    Hi..
    Thanks for the lovely information on WW2... I was looking for the same information... i like so much to read all this stuff...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Freshman Jake Boyd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    28
    Quote Originally Posted by ishmaelblues
    on a seperate issue then the politics, world war one made world war two inevitable, so the issue is the first war. To have prevented the 1st war we would literally have to change the culture of europe. Despite any of the politics the people were clamouring for war, they wanted it on both sides, i would not know how to change grass roots like that.

    check out the book rites of spring, its a little unorthodox but is a great read
    One crude way to have made WW2 less of a mess would have been if the popular front movements in Spain and France had united in one socialist Empire and gotten massive supplies from the USSR in 1935. The Popular Fronts were very close to winning even in Spain even against active intervention by Germany and Italy. Had France joined in then the whole Fascist ball game could have been over by say 1938. Probably this would at least give you a very different WW2.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard i_feel_tiredsleepy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Montreal
    Posts
    2,256
    Quote Originally Posted by ishmaelblues
    The french people before World War One had a personal axe to grind with the german empire and in the east the nationalist movements were beyond any control. and the english peopel were exicted at teaching the barvaric germans the proper way to fight. This cultural atmosphere is mostly ignored by popular accounts after the war, historian never forgot it though, and it really was the only cause of World War One that resonated the large mass of europe, where they were a force and not an object acted on.
    It is more of a matter of systems used by realist political scientist. They ignore domestic politics and only look at power relations between nations. From a realist perspective, secret alliances and Germany's precarious position between the French and Russians made the war very likely.
    dan hunter likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    419
    I agree that WW2 was inevitable after the outcome of WW1. But what if WW1 had adifferent outcome? What if Germany and Austria/Hungary had won the war?

    All it would have taken was for Von Moltke (the head of the German forces) to follow the Shlieffen plan and they would have taken Paris as they had done 40 years earlier at Sedan to no great consequence except for bent noses for the French. Germany would not have swung drastically to the right if they had won the war. Britain may not have gotten involved if France capitulated in a matter of days and its economy not depleted by four years of war. Italy would not have gotten involved and Russia would not have sued for a peace which led to the Communist revolution. Austria/Hungary would still have disintegrated due to internal forces in a short period of time even if on the winning side.

    So a short war against the French followed by all German and Austrian forces against the Russians with the objective of stopping them from coming to Serbia's aid would have been over in less than six months. Because European economies would have ben stronger, the inflation of the 20s would have been avoded with a much quicker recovery from the depression. The horrors of Hitler and Mussolini would have been avoided and the Communist experiment in Russia without Lenin and Stalin would have meant a prosperous century for Eastern Europe and possibly no Chinese Communisim with Mao. The whole cold war could have been avoided and the only ones to suffer would have been the French.

    I think I could live with that ! But please comment on my assumptions.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Quote Originally Posted by MigL
    I agree that WW2 was inevitable after the outcome of WW1. But what if WW1 had adifferent outcome? What if Germany and Austria/Hungary had won the war?

    All it would have taken was for Von Moltke (the head of the German forces) to follow the Shlieffen plan and they would have taken Paris as they had done 40 years earlier at Sedan to no great consequence except for bent noses for the French. Germany would not have swung drastically to the right if they had won the war. Britain may not have gotten involved if France capitulated in a matter of days and its economy not depleted by four years of war. Italy would not have gotten involved and Russia would not have sued for a peace which led to the Communist revolution. Austria/Hungary would still have disintegrated due to internal forces in a short period of time even if on the winning side.
    So, what would have happened with the Ottoman Empire? Do you think they'd still be intact? Just imagine what the middle East would look like today if the borders had been drawn by a victorious Turkey.


    So a short war against the French followed by all German and Austrian forces against the Russians with the objective of stopping them from coming to Serbia's aid would have been over in less than six months. Because European economies would have ben stronger, the inflation of the 20s would have been avoded with a much quicker recovery from the depression. The horrors of Hitler and Mussolini would have been avoided and the Communist experiment in Russia without Lenin and Stalin would have meant a prosperous century for Eastern Europe and possibly no Chinese Communisim with Mao. The whole cold war could have been avoided and the only ones to suffer would have been the French.

    I think I could live with that ! But please comment on my assumptions.
    The best kind of war is a short war. I don't think military people like short wars, though. Desert Storm in the early 90's left a bad taste in a lot of American soldiers' mouths. Something about it all being over before hardly any of them had gotten to fire their rifle. The war we're in might not turn out to have a good ending, but at least it feels like a real fight.

    Do you really think the German war machine would have been able to live with a swift outcome, or would they have just gone on looking for more fights until they finally got in over their heads?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Forum Ph.D. Leszek Luchowski's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Gliwice, Poland
    Posts
    807
    Quote Originally Posted by Jake Boyd
    One crude way to have made WW2 less of a mess would have been if the popular front movements in Spain and France had united in one socialist Empire and gotten massive supplies from the USSR in 1935. The Popular Fronts were very close to winning even in Spain even against active intervention by Germany and Italy. Had France joined in then the whole Fascist ball game could have been over by say 1938.
    Possibly, but I think then the Communist ball game would still be on today, with the Iron Curtain on the English Channel, if not the Mississippi.
    Leszek. Pronounced [LEH-sheck]. The wondering Slav.
    History teaches us that we don't learn from history.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    419
    Hey Kojax, I don't think the Ottoman Empire could have made more of a mess in the Middle East than England/France did. Being the 'sick man of Europe', the Ottomans wouldn't have lasted much longer anyway, even with a victory in the war. However present day Turkey and its secularism may never have arisen and it may have been more like Saudi Arabia and other Muslim states.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Quote Originally Posted by MigL
    Hey Kojax, I don't think the Ottoman Empire could have made more of a mess in the Middle East than England/France did. Being the 'sick man of Europe', the Ottomans wouldn't have lasted much longer anyway, even with a victory in the war. However present day Turkey and its secularism may never have arisen and it may have been more like Saudi Arabia and other Muslim states.
    Maybe if they'd been allowed to run their course, people in the Middle East would (rightly) blame them instead of Western Europe for their political quagmire. Or, maybe they'd just use a more complicated rationale and end up blaming the West anyway?

    We're damned if we do and damned if we don't. If we try to make things better, they seem to get worse. But.... I'm not sure they're really worse. Maybe they were already that bad before we arrived, and people are just saying we caused it so they can obligate us to fix it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Forum Freshman Spaceman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    67
    I think the WW2 could be more prevented if more people rised against Hitler, And against the nazis. But is also the alliances between the contries.

    But germany had a economic cris, But if people still rised against Hitler and his nazis, Then MABY the WW2 could be prevented.

    //Spaceman
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    1,839
    I think nothing could have stopped WW2, that was why it happened.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope cosmictraveler's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Key West, Florida, Earth
    Posts
    4,789
    If the people would have elected another man rather than Hitler then the war would not have happened, IMO.
    When the power of love overcomes the love of power the world will know peace.
    Jimi Hendrix
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    1,839
    Quote Originally Posted by cosmictraveler View Post
    If the people would have elected another man rather than Hitler then the war would not have happened, IMO.
    Are you sure about that? Things happen when people are in power. I concur something different might have happened but something will always happen, no matter who is in power it cannot be avoided.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    not ADM!N grmpysmrf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    1,564
    "what could have prevented WW2"
    Letting Hitler into art school
    babe likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    1,839
    Quote Originally Posted by grmpysmrf View Post
    "what could have prevented WW2"
    Letting Hitler into art school
    If you are joking forget the question, but why do you say that?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    not ADM!N grmpysmrf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    1,564
    Quote Originally Posted by Stargate View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by grmpysmrf View Post
    "what could have prevented WW2"
    Letting Hitler into art school
    If you are joking forget the question, but why do you say that?
    Half joke/sarcasm.

    Cause apparently Hitler was denied entrance into some prestigious art school several times so he ended up joining the military since he couldn't get in instead.
    Apparently he was quite good at it and had an eye for architecture.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    1,839
    Quote Originally Posted by grmpysmrf View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Stargate View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by grmpysmrf View Post
    "what could have prevented WW2"
    Letting Hitler into art school
    If you are joking forget the question, but why do you say that?
    Half joke/sarcasm.

    Cause apparently Hitler was denied entrance into some prestigious art school several times so he ended up joining the military since he couldn't get in instead.
    Apparently he was quite good at it and had an eye for architecture.
    Thanks for your reply. I am not sure that would have change the events of the past but, who knows.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    not ADM!N grmpysmrf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    1,564
    Quote Originally Posted by Stargate View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by grmpysmrf View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Stargate View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by grmpysmrf View Post
    "what could have prevented WW2"
    Letting Hitler into art school
    If you are joking forget the question, but why do you say that?
    Half joke/sarcasm.

    Cause apparently Hitler was denied entrance into some prestigious art school several times so he ended up joining the military since he couldn't get in instead.
    Apparently he was quite good at it and had an eye for architecture.
    Thanks for your reply. I am not sure that would have change the events of the past but, who knows.
    You don't think Hitler holed up in some monastery drawing pictures of buildings and horses wouldn't have stopped him from joining the military and beginning his rise through the ranks?
    Somewhere there is a universe where Hitler got into that art school and people all over that world clamor for a look at a real Hitler along with a real Van Gogh. And the thought Of "Hitler... THE Hitler" being a tyrant who slaughtered millions doesn't even enter, even as a fleeting thought, into their brains because of what a beautiful artist he was... I wonder what such a universe looks like... evil bastard!
    Last edited by grmpysmrf; February 7th, 2014 at 09:21 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    I'm of the mind that history "makes the man," more than the somewhat popular notion that "men make history."

    The conditions were extremely ripe for a rebellious rise of Germany from the ashes of WWI including anger and immense recent suffering from the oppressive restrictions of victors, economic devastation during the 20's, centuries old Christian-based anti-semitism, an extremely innovative people, robust high technology knowledge of industry and education and science. I think any number of political leaders could have filled Hitler's role as the focal point beside Hitler.
    Stargate likes this.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    not ADM!N grmpysmrf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    1,564
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    I'm of the mind that history "makes the man," more than the somewhat popular notion that "men make history."

    The conditions were extremely ripe for a rebellious rise of Germany from the ashes of WWI including anger and immense recent suffering from the oppressive restrictions of victors, economic devastation during the 20's, centuries old Christian-based anti-semitism, an extremely innovative people, robust high technology knowledge of industry and education and science. I think any number of political leaders could have filled Hitler's role as the focal point beside Hitler.
    That's a valid point... but would have all happened at the same time?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Quote Originally Posted by grmpysmrf View Post
    You don't think Hitler holed up in some monastery drawing pictures of buildings and horses would have stopped him from joining the military and beginning his rise through the ranks?
    Hitler joined the military because of the outbreak of WWI and his strong Germanic patriotism. The latter was not a result of living in a workingman's hostel rather than attending the Fine Arts academy in Vienna.

    He did not rise through the ranks in the military. Although often referred to in English as Corporal Hitler, his highest rank was one unique to the German army at that time, that was one rung below a Corporal.

    His foundational beliefs were set by the climate of thinking in Vienna when he lived there. They would likely have been much the same whether or not he had gained admittance to the academy.

    (There is an intriguing book called The Iron Dream by Norman Spinrad, that is supposedly written by the SF writer Adolf Hitler who, after dabbling in radical politics in Munich after WWI emigrates to the USA and becomes an accomplished SF author.)
    babe likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    not ADM!N grmpysmrf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    1,564
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by grmpysmrf View Post
    You don't think Hitler holed up in some monastery drawing pictures of buildings and horses would have stopped him from joining the military and beginning his rise through the ranks?
    Hitler joined the military because of the outbreak of WWI and his strong Germanic patriotism. The latter was not a result of living in a workingman's hostel rather than attending the Fine Arts academy in Vienna.

    He did not rise through the ranks in the military. Although often referred to in English as Corporal Hitler, his highest rank was one unique to the German army at that time, that was one rung below a Corporal.

    His foundational beliefs were set by the climate of thinking in Vienna when he lived there. They would likely have been much the same whether or not he had gained admittance to the academy.

    (There is an intriguing book called The Iron Dream by Norman Spinrad, that is supposedly written by the SF writer Adolf Hitler who, after dabbling in radical politics in Munich after WWI emigrates to the USA and becomes an accomplished SF author.)
    I was under the understanding that he did not like the war and was done with it after WW1 but being barred from vienna art school forced him back into the military cause he was damn near homeless
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Your understanding is completely messed up on every point.

    His application to the Vienna academy of arts was made prior to 1910. Following the death of his mother and despite a small pension derived from his father, who had been a customs official, he was homeless and lived for some time in a workingman's hostel.

    He volunteered almost immediately for service on the outbreak of war and relished the conflict. He was a runner for a Bavarian regiment and routinely volunteered for the most hazardous duty. He was awarded the Iron Cross Second Class and later the Iron Cross First Class, the highest award for bravery in the German military.

    After the war, appalled by what he saw as the defeatism in the civilian population (caused, he thought, by the Jews) he allied himself with and then took over a small right wing political group in Munich. He never re-entered the military other than becoming Commander in Chief of the military in '37 or '38.
    Stargate and grmpysmrf like this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    215
    Quote Originally Posted by Stargate View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by cosmictraveler View Post
    If the people would have elected another man rather than Hitler then the war would not have happened, IMO.
    Are you sure about that? Things happen when people are in power. I concur something different might have happened but something will always happen, no matter who is in power it cannot be avoided.
    WW2could have been prevented by educating those left behind by technological advancements thus controlling the poverty level. Once impoverished it was easy for Hitler to pit one people against another. National pride in this condition became a weakness and native born Germans flocked to Hitler as he declared the Jewish people enemy of the state and the cause to all their problems. National pride is fueled in a military state. All Hitler had to do was sit back and wait for the cruelest and craziest people to rise up in this frenzied state and place them in a position of power. Fear is now in place, and the state like a witch hunt sought out those who were not fueled with the same national pride, those who were not willing to sacrifice their principles for the cause. All societies have throwaway people, let them become the majority and you will have a revolution on your hands. When weapons outweigh tools a war is inevitable. In the condition the world was in at this period of time I do not think WW2 was preventable WW1 was not big enough to tip the scale. Impoverished people will always pay the price for ignorance.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    305
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    Your understanding is completely messed up on every point.

    His application to the Vienna academy of arts was made prior to 1910. Following the death of his mother and despite a small pension derived from his father, who had been a customs official, he was homeless and lived for some time in a workingman's hostel.

    He volunteered almost immediately for service on the outbreak of war and relished the conflict. He was a runner for a Bavarian regiment and routinely volunteered for the most hazardous duty. He was awarded the Iron Cross Second Class and later the Iron Cross First Class, the highest award for bravery in the German military.

    After the war, appalled by what he saw as the defeatism in the civilian population (caused, he thought, by the Jews) he allied himself with and then took over a small right wing political group in Munich. He never re-entered the military other than becoming Commander in Chief of the military in '37 or '38.
    Most historians think Hitler moved from Austria to avoid conscription to the Austrian army, I think it's too simplified to say that he would have joined the army, three years of homelessness i'd imagine contributed to his racial theory.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Theatre Whore babe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Resident of Big Island of Hawai'i since 2003, and in Bayside, Ca. since 1981, Humboldt since 1977
    Posts
    12,440
    Quote Originally Posted by cosmictraveler View Post
    If the people would have elected another man rather than Hitler then the war would not have happened, IMO.
    You are discouting the Japanese? Just a question.....as they were a large part of WWII.....well for America.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    Theatre Whore babe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Resident of Big Island of Hawai'i since 2003, and in Bayside, Ca. since 1981, Humboldt since 1977
    Posts
    12,440
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    I'm of the mind that history "makes the man," more than the somewhat popular notion that "men make history."

    The conditions were extremely ripe for a rebellious rise of Germany from the ashes of WWI including anger and immense recent suffering from the oppressive restrictions of victors, economic devastation during the 20's, centuries old Christian-based anti-semitism, an extremely innovative people, robust high technology knowledge of industry and education and science. I think any number of political leaders could have filled Hitler's role as the focal point beside Hitler.
    Who realistically would have been "IN LINE" to do that other than Hitler? Certainly NOT Mussolini!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    305
    Quote Originally Posted by babe View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    I'm of the mind that history "makes the man," more than the somewhat popular notion that "men make history."

    The conditions were extremely ripe for a rebellious rise of Germany from the ashes of WWI including anger and immense recent suffering from the oppressive restrictions of victors, economic devastation during the 20's, centuries old Christian-based anti-semitism, an extremely innovative people, robust high technology knowledge of industry and education and science. I think any number of political leaders could have filled Hitler's role as the focal point beside Hitler.
    Who realistically would have been "IN LINE" to do that other than Hitler? Certainly NOT Mussolini!
    Anyone of the people who voted for the NSDAP, there were about 1m people in far right parties in the Weimar Republic iirc
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36  
    Theatre Whore babe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Resident of Big Island of Hawai'i since 2003, and in Bayside, Ca. since 1981, Humboldt since 1977
    Posts
    12,440
    Quote Originally Posted by Trivium View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by babe View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    I'm of the mind that history "makes the man," more than the somewhat popular notion that "men make history."

    The conditions were extremely ripe for a rebellious rise of Germany from the ashes of WWI including anger and immense recent suffering from the oppressive restrictions of victors, economic devastation during the 20's, centuries old Christian-based anti-semitism, an extremely innovative people, robust high technology knowledge of industry and education and science. I think any number of political leaders could have filled Hitler's role as the focal point beside Hitler.
    Who realistically would have been "IN LINE" to do that other than Hitler? Certainly NOT Mussolini!
    Anyone of the people who voted for the NSDAP, there were about 1m people in far right parties in the Weimar Republic iirc
    and they were?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #37  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    305
    Quote Originally Posted by babe View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Trivium View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by babe View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    I'm of the mind that history "makes the man," more than the somewhat popular notion that "men make history."

    The conditions were extremely ripe for a rebellious rise of Germany from the ashes of WWI including anger and immense recent suffering from the oppressive restrictions of victors, economic devastation during the 20's, centuries old Christian-based anti-semitism, an extremely innovative people, robust high technology knowledge of industry and education and science. I think any number of political leaders could have filled Hitler's role as the focal point beside Hitler.
    Who realistically would have been "IN LINE" to do that other than Hitler? Certainly NOT Mussolini!
    Anyone of the people who voted for the NSDAP, there were about 1m people in far right parties in the Weimar Republic iirc
    and they were?
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weimar_...ies#Right-wing
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #38  
    Theatre Whore babe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Resident of Big Island of Hawai'i since 2003, and in Bayside, Ca. since 1981, Humboldt since 1977
    Posts
    12,440
    So the German's.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #39  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    215
    Quote Originally Posted by Trivium View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    Your understanding is completely messed up on every point.

    His application to the Vienna academy of arts was made prior to 1910. Following the death of his mother and despite a small pension derived from his father, who had been a customs official, he was homeless and lived for some time in a workingman's hostel.

    He volunteered almost immediately for service on the outbreak of war and relished the conflict. He was a runner for a Bavarian regiment and routinely volunteered for the most hazardous duty. He was awarded the Iron Cross Second Class and later the Iron Cross First Class, the highest award for bravery in the German military.

    After the war, appalled by what he saw as the defeatism in the civilian population (caused, he thought, by the Jews) he allied himself with and then took over a small right wing political group in Munich. He never re-entered the military other than becoming Commander in Chief of the military in '37 or '38.
    Most historians think Hitler moved from Austria to avoid conscription to the Austrian army, I think it's too simplified to say that he would have joined the army, three years of homelessness i'd imagine contributed to his racial theory.
    You are looking at the problem as if it were a chest game and the pieces are set in stone, checkmate one side and you have WW2, Checkmate the other side and you don’t. The pieces are not set in stone as you are dealing with time. The conditions are set in stone or appear to be in the eyes of the people. The board to the chest game is fixed so the most probable outcome is war. In this condition any piece can become King even a pawn.
    Last edited by YangYin; February 8th, 2014 at 12:07 PM.
    Stargate likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #40  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    1,839
    Quote Originally Posted by YangYin View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Stargate View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by cosmictraveler View Post
    If the people would have elected another man rather than Hitler then the war would not have happened, IMO.
    Are you sure about that? Things happen when people are in power. I concur something different might have happened but something will always happen, no matter who is in power it cannot be avoided.
    WW2could have been prevented by educating those left behind by technological advancements thus controlling the poverty level. Once impoverished it was easy for Hitler to pit one people against another. National pride in this condition became a weakness and native born Germans flocked to Hitler as he declared the Jewish people enemy of the state and the cause to all their problems. National pride is fueled in a military state. All Hitler had to do was sit back and wait for the cruelest and craziest people to rise up in this frenzied state and place them in a position of power. Fear is now in place, and the state like a witch hunt sought out those who were not fueled with the same national pride, those who were not willing to sacrifice their principles for the cause. All societies have throwaway people, let them become the majority and you will have a revolution on your hands. When weapons outweigh tools a war is inevitable. In the condition the world was in at this period of time I do not think WW2 was preventable WW1 was not big enough to tip the scale. Impoverished people will always pay the price for ignorance.
    I think there is always a price to pay, impoverished or not. people generally want someone to drive them when they are down, there will always be a Hitler, and a Stalin, a Churchill, a Mandela, and many other to drive the masses at the given time.
    grmpysmrf likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #41  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    1,839
    Quote Originally Posted by babe View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    I'm of the mind that history "makes the man," more than the somewhat popular notion that "men make history."

    The conditions were extremely ripe for a rebellious rise of Germany from the ashes of WWI including anger and immense recent suffering from the oppressive restrictions of victors, economic devastation during the 20's, centuries old Christian-based anti-semitism, an extremely innovative people, robust high technology knowledge of industry and education and science. I think any number of political leaders could have filled Hitler's role as the focal point beside Hitler.
    Who realistically would have been "IN LINE" to do that other than Hitler? Certainly NOT Mussolini!
    Why not Mussolini? He was obsessed with rebuilding Rome. I think the essence of timing is the main ingredient in the pursuit of these peoples goal.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #42  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    2,408
    If the Russian Revolution (triggered by Germany in WWI shipping Lenin from Switzerland in Russia by train) had not happened the WWII might have been preventable.

    WWI did set the stage for WWII. WWI ended without actually resolving the economic problems Europe faced. Germany was still the great economic power in Europe because of their prowess in manufacturing. WWI also left France and England poor in spite of their control of their respective empires. Remember France controlled Indo-China (Vietnam) which gave them a natural monopoly over the world supply of rubber while Britain had India and Hong Kong.

    Add to this the extremely rapid growth of Soviet economic power after the Russian Revolution. Germany was the first out of the depression. Even though the measures that made this possible were put in place by the Weimar Republic the time lag to see results allowed the Nazis to claim credit for them. Germany was seeing economic growth around 4% in the early 1930s. Soviet Russia at this time was developing their manufacturing with economic growth around 10%. In a few years they would have grown their economy to were it was larger than Germanies. You have all the same conflicts as existed at the start of WWI but with the additional pressure of the economic conflict between USSR economic growth while the rest of the western world (except Germany) were still mired in the Great Depression.
    Because the western nations (Allies) feared the economic strength of both Germany and USSR they were happy to support Hitler with his promise to annihilate the USSR. The hope was a war between Germany and USSR would weaken them both enough that neither one would be a threat.

    When Hitler threw them a curve by signing a non-aggression treaty with Stalin during the invasion of Poland England decided to declare war against Germany with USSR as an Allied Nation instead of risking USSR joining the German Axis along with Japan and Italy.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #43  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,675
    Quote Originally Posted by dan hunter View Post
    Because the western nations (Allies) feared the economic strength of both Germany and USSR they were happy to support Hitler with his promise to annihilate the USSR.
    Promise to annihilate?
    They were significant trading partners through the '30s.
    Germany LOST more (economically) by invading and losing that trade.
    dan hunter likes this.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #44  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    305
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by dan hunter View Post
    Because the western nations (Allies) feared the economic strength of both Germany and USSR they were happy to support Hitler with his promise to annihilate the USSR.
    Promise to annihilate?
    They were significant trading partners through the '30s.
    Germany LOST more (economically) by invading and losing that trade.
    I think he's refering to the passage in mein kampf where Hitler talks about the inevitable expansion eastwards (not sure if Hitler was read by the allies at this point), and the Russians (well Slavs in general) being refered to as subhuman and inferior.
    dan hunter likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #45  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    2,408
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by dan hunter View Post
    Because the western nations (Allies) feared the economic strength of both Germany and USSR they were happy to support Hitler with his promise to annihilate the USSR.
    Promise to annihilate?
    They were significant trading partners through the '30s.
    Germany LOST more (economically) by invading and losing that trade.
    The Nazi party was at war with the Communists at the same time as German business interests were trading with them. If you look at German political activity in the 20s you see the Brownshirts and Redshirts battling in the streets. You see also the proxy war between the Germans and Soviets in Spain with Germany supporting the Fascist while the Soviets supported the Communists.

    I suppose I should offer you a bit more detail, so if you look at the Polish Soviet war of 1920 and Lenin's policy towards taking over Germany by using German Communists to start a revolution there you should be able to see some of the beginnings of the conflict. The Nazis were not interested in building an egalitarian society or in internationalism. They were fundamentally Nationalists and Fascists. They thought (rightly IMHO) that if the Commintern succeeded Germany would end up as a vassal state to the Soviet.

    I am not a historian so I can't offer you much more than that, however it is worth noting the first people into concentration (murder) camps were Communists, not Jews.

    But in spite of that Hitler did sign the antiaggression pact after the partitioning of Poland in 1939.
    (Edit; not after the partitioning, but before. although I would actually describe the pact as the partitioning.)
    Last edited by dan hunter; February 8th, 2014 at 10:13 PM. Reason: spelling
    Reply With Quote  
     

  47. #46  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    305
    Quote Originally Posted by dan hunter View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by dan hunter View Post
    Because the western nations (Allies) feared the economic strength of both Germany and USSR they were happy to support Hitler with his promise to annihilate the USSR.
    Promise to annihilate?
    They were significant trading partners through the '30s.
    Germany LOST more (economically) by invading and losing that trade.
    The Nazi party was at war with the Communists at the same time as German business interests were trading with them. If you look at German political activity in the 20s you see the Brownshirts and Redshirts battling in the streets. You see also the proxy war between the Germans and Soviets in Spain with Germany supporting the Fascist while the Soviets supported the Communists.

    I suppose I should offer you a bit more detail, so if you look at the Polish Soviet war of 1920 and Lenin's policy towards taking over Germany by using German Communists to start a revolution there you should be able to see some of the beginnings of the conflict. The Nazis were not interested in building an egalitarian society or in internationalism. They were fundamentally Nationalists and Fascists. They thought (rightly IMHO) that if the Commintern succeeded Germany would end up as a vassal state to the Soviet.

    I am not a historian so I can't offer you much more than that, however it is worth noting the first people into concentration (murder) camps were Communists, not Jews.

    But in spite of that Hitler did sign the antiaggression pact after the partitioning of Poland in 1939.
    If I may, I had forgotten but having looked at some evidence (I can not find it online) in print as to why people joined the Nazi party (from members themselves): communism was higher on the list than anti-semitism.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  48. #47  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    282
    In my view the main cause of World War II was the ill-considered terms of the Treaty of Versailles, the treaty that permanently ended hostilities between Germany and the allied powers, thus ending World War I. The treaty included a clause called the War Guilt clause, which required that Germany accept that all the loss and damage caused by the war was entirely the fault of Germany and her allies, and requiring Germany pay substantial reparations.

    To the Germans, this was not only humiliating and economically painful, but vastly unjust. WWI was started by the Serbian assassination plot that murdered Archduke Franz Ferdinand. Austria-Hungary reacted to the assassination of the heir to their imperial throne by invading Serbia, which no German could see as unreasonable. Russia stepped in to defend Serbia, as their mutual defense treaty required. Only then did Germany become involved, declaring war on Russia as her own defense treaty with Austria-Hungary required.

    The British and French would paint the Germans as the warmongering instigators who invaded France, but in fact Germany did not want war with France. Britain and France declared war on Germany, only then did Germany invade France. From the viewpoint of the German people, it was the British and French who were clearly the instigators, not Germany.

    American propagandists claimed they were fighting "to make the world safe for democracy". Imagine how this sounded to the German people, who overthrew the Kaiser, established an armistice, transformed the German empire into a republic, then got handed all the blame for the war, and a massive reparations bill on top of the humiliation. Apparently, whatever democracy the world was being made safe for was not to be a German one.

    There is some dispute among economic experts as to how damaging the Versailles mandated reparations really were to the German economy. Some argue they were a relatively minor factor overshadowed by other factors, others hold the theory the effect was quite severe. There is little doubt, though, that the reparations issue was an easily available tool for whipping up nationalist fervor and anti-west resentment by Germany's ambitious politicians.

    Woodrow Wilson argued that while Germany should be held accountable for her actions during the war, it was the German leadership who should be punished, not the people. But by the time Versailles was signed, those leaders were already gone, deposed by the actions of the German people themselves. It was in fact the German people who were punished. In my view, had Germany's fledgeling republic been encouraged, rather than punished, World War II need never have happened.
    Last edited by danhanegan; February 8th, 2014 at 10:17 PM. Reason: corrected typos
    grmpysmrf likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  49. #48  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Quote Originally Posted by Trivium View Post
    Most historians think Hitler moved from Austria to avoid conscription to the Austrian army,
    That was because he was committed already to pan-Germanism. He was not trying to avoid army service, but Austrian army service. He very much wanted to fight. (And please point out where Kershaw, Toland, or Fest make the claim.)

    Quote Originally Posted by Trivium View Post
    .... I think it's too simplified to say that he would have joined the army, three years of homelessness i'd imagine contributed to his racial theory.
    No, a decade living in a Vienna that reeked of antisemitism at all levels may have done this, thought there is no clear evidence that he was anti-semitic at this point.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  50. #49  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    1,034
    Let Ferdinand live.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  51. #50  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Quote Originally Posted by dan hunter View Post
    When Hitler threw them a curve by signing a non-aggression treaty with Stalin during the invasion of Poland England decided to declare war against Germany with USSR as an Allied Nation instead of risking USSR joining the German Axis along with Japan and Italy.
    Your timings and motivations and facts are messed up here. There is practically nothing correct in your post apart from the spelling. I'll let you check the facts and correct them yourself.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  52. #51  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    305
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Trivium View Post
    Most historians think Hitler moved from Austria to avoid conscription to the Austrian army,
    That was because he was committed already to pan-Germanism. He was not trying to avoid army service, but Austrian army service. He very much wanted to fight. (And please point out where Kershaw, Toland, or Fest make the claim.)

    Quote Originally Posted by Trivium View Post
    .... I think it's too simplified to say that he would have joined the army, three years of homelessness i'd imagine contributed to his racial theory.
    No, a decade living in a Vienna that reeked of antisemitism at all levels may have done this, thought there is no clear evidence that he was anti-semitic at this point.
    John, what evidence do you have to suggest that anti-semitism was as extreme as you're implying? From evidence the Nazi vote was incredibly small until the Great Depression (something like 2% in 1927?), furthermore anti-semitism was downplayed during the election and Jewish people were highly assimilated into German culture (look at the Weimar Golden Age) and held very high positions, I agree that Hitler was already a devoted nationalist (he writes himself in mein kampf that it was inspired by his history teacher) however.

    *just realised this post might have confused you as i'm talking about after now, i'm implying after the war anti-semitism wasn't as common as seem to be implied, so I highly doubt it was before.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  53. #52  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    2,408
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by dan hunter View Post
    When Hitler threw them a curve by signing a non-aggression treaty with Stalin during the invasion of Poland England decided to declare war against Germany with USSR as an Allied Nation instead of risking USSR joining the German Axis along with Japan and Italy.
    Your timings and motivations and facts are messed up here. There is practically nothing correct in your post apart from the spelling. I'll let you check the facts and correct them yourself.
    From Wikipedia:
    "The Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact, named after the Soviet foreign minister Vyacheslav Molotov and the Nazi German foreign ministerJoachim von Ribbentrop, officially the Treaty of Non-aggression between Germany and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics,[a] and also known as the Ribbentrop–Molotov Pact or Nazi–Soviet Pact, was a non-aggression pactsigned in Moscow in the late hours of 23 August 1939.The pact's publicly stated intentions were a guarantee of non-belligerence by either party towards the other, and a commitment that neither party would ally with or aid an enemy of the other party. This latter provision ensured that Germany would not support Japan in its undeclared war against the Soviet Union along the Manchurian-Mongolian border, ensuring that the Soviets won the Battles of Khalkhin Gol.[2]
    In addition to stipulations of non-aggression, the treaty included a secret protocol that divided territories of Romania, Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia and Finland into Nazi and Soviet "spheres of influence", anticipating potential "territorial and political rearrangements" of these countries. Thereafter, Germany invadedPoland on 1 September 1939. After the Soviet-Japanese ceasefire agreement took effect on 16 September, Stalin ordered his own invasion of Poland on 17 September.[3] Part of southeastern (Karelia) and Salla region in Finland were annexed by the Soviet Union after the Winter War. This was followed by Soviet annexations of Estonia, Latvia,Lithuania, Bessarabia, Northern Bukovina and the Hertza region.
    The pact remained in force until the German government broke it by invading the Soviet Union on 22 June 1941."

    Note: I include the negotiatons to partition Poland as part of the invasion planning and that makes the treaty part of the invasion.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  54. #53  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    1. The pact was not signed during the invasion. We do not say that D-Day took place in November 1943, or that Neil Armstrong landed on the moon in 1961. The pact was signed before the invasion.
    2. England did not declare war on Germany for the contorted reason you gave, but superficially because a treaty existed with the Poles to protect them from German aggression and essentially because it was recognised that appeasement was not working. (And England, in fact, made no declaration of war. The declaration was by the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. I do not recall if the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man were specifically mentioned in the declaration.)
    3. The emergence of Russia as an ally did not occur until Hitler reneged on the deal with the Russians and launched Operation Barbarossa, the invasion of the Soviet Union.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  55. #54  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    2,408
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by dan hunter View Post
    When Hitler threw them a curve by signing a non-aggression treaty with Stalin during the invasion of Poland England decided to declare war against Germany with USSR as an Allied Nation instead of risking USSR joining the German Axis along with Japan and Italy.
    Your timings and motivations and facts are messed up here. There is practically nothing correct in your post apart from the spelling. I'll let you check the facts and correct them yourself.
    Again from Wikipedia:
    "Pact with Adolf Hitler[edit]

    Main articles: Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact and Soviet–German relations before 1941
    In August 1939, Stalin accepted Adolf Hitler's proposal to enter into a non-aggression pact with Nazi Germany, negotiated by the foreign ministers Vyacheslav Molotov for the Soviets and Joachim von Ribbentrop for the Germans.[2] Officially a non-aggression treaty only, an appended secret protocol, also reached on August 23, 1939, divided the whole of eastern Europe into German and Soviet spheres of influence.[3][4] The USSR was promised an eastern part of Poland, then primarily populated by Ukrainians and Belarusians, in case of its dissolution, and Germany recognized Latvia, Estonia and Finland as parts of the Soviet sphere of influence,[4] with Lithuania added in a second secret protocol in September 1939.[5]Another clause of the treaty was that Bessarabia, then part of Romania, was to be joined to the Moldovan ASSR, and become the Moldovan SSR under control of Moscow.[4]
    The Pact was reached two days after the breakdown of Soviet military talks with British and French representatives in August 1939 over a potential Franco-Anglo-Soviet alliance.[6][7]Political discussions had been suspended on August 2 when Molotov stated they could not be restarted until progress was made in military talks late in August,[8] after the talks had stalled over guarantees of the Baltic states,[9][10] while the military talks upon which Molotov insisted[9] started on 11 August.[6][11] At the same time, Germany—with whom the Soviets had started secret discussions since July 29[2][12][13][14][15] -- argued that it could offer the Soviets better terms than Britain and France, with Ribbentrop insisting, "there was no problem between the Baltic and the Black Sea that could not be solved between the two of us."[6][16][17] German officials stated that, unlike Britain, Germany could permit the Soviets to continue their developments unmolested, and that "there is one common element in the ideology of Germany, Italy and the Soviet Union: opposition to the capitalist democracies of the West."[16][18] By that time, Molotov obtained information regarding Anglo-German negotiations and a pessimistic report from the Soviet ambassador in France.[12]After disagreement regarding Stalin's demand to move Red Army troops through Poland and Romania (which Poland and Romania opposed),[6][11] on August 21, the Soviets proposed adjournment of military talks using the excuse that the absence of the senior Soviet personnel at the talks interfered with the autumn manoeuvres of the Soviet forces, though the primary reason was the progress being made in the Soviet-German negotiations.[11] That same day, Stalin received assurance that Germany would approve secret protocols to the proposed non-aggression pact that would grant the Soviets land in Poland, the Baltic states, Finland and Romania,[19] after which Stalin telegrammed Hitler that night that the Soviets were willing to sign the pact and that he would receive Ribbentrop on August 23.[20] Regarding the larger issue of collective security, some historians state that one reason that Stalin decided to abandon the doctrine was the shaping of his views of France and Britain by their entry into the Munich Agreement and the subsequent failure to prevent German occupation of Czechoslovakia.[21][22][23] Stalin also viewed the Pact as gaining time in an inevitable war with Hitler in order to reinforce the Soviet military and shifting Soviet borders westwards, which would be militarily beneficial in such a war.[24][25]
    Stalin and Ribbentrop spent most of the night of the Pact's signing trading friendly stories about world affairs and cracking jokes (a rarity for Ribbentrop) about England's weakness, and the pair even joked about how the Anti-Comintern Pact principally scared "British shopkeepers."[26] They further traded toasts, with Stalin proposing a toast to Hitler's health and Ribbentrop proposing a toast to Stalin.[26]"

    If you go to The Churchill Centre website you get an even more convoluted presentation of the negotiations between Germany, Soviet Russia and Britain.
    Churchill and the Baltic, Part II: 1931-1950
    Last edited by dan hunter; February 8th, 2014 at 08:14 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  56. #55  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Quote Originally Posted by Trivium View Post
    John, what evidence do you have to suggest that anti-semitism was as extreme as you're implying?
    This is well understood to be the case by those who have studied the period. Recall that I am speaking of Austria in general and Vienna in particular.

    Unfortunately, I am in the US for two weeks and therefore separated from my library, but my assertion is based upon the contents of the following books:

    Brigitte Hamman 'Hitler's Vienna' Oxford University Press 1999 ISBN:0-19-512537
    J.Sydney Jones 'Hitler in Vienna 1907 - 1913' Rowman and Littlefield Publishers 1982 ISBN:0-8154-1191-X
    August Kubizek 'The Young Hitler I Knew' Skyhorse Publishing 1953 ISBN:978-1-61145-058-3
    Thomas Weber 'Hitler's First War' Cambridge University Press 2010 ISBN:978-0-19-923320-5
    Timothy W. Ryback 'Hitler's Private Library' Alfred A. Knopf 2008 ISBN:978-1-4000-4204-3

    The following works also support my assertion, but contain less telling detail:
    Joachim C. Fest 'Hitler' Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich 1973
    Ernst Hanfstaengl 'Hitler' Skyhorse Publishing 1957 ISBN:13-978-1-61145-362-1
    Otto Deitrich 'The Hitler I Knew' Skyhorse Publishing 1955 ISBN:978-1-60239-972-3Ronald Hayman 'Hitler + Gelli' Bloomsbury Publications 1997 ISBN:1-58234-036-6
    Allan Bullock 'Hitler' Konecky & Konecky 1962 ISBN:1-56852-036-0Edwin Palmer Hoyt 'Hitler's War' McGraw Hill 1988 ISBN:0-07-030622-2
    Charles B. Flood 'Hitler: The Path to Power' Houghton Mifflin 1989 ISBN:0-395-35312-2
    Ian Kershaw 'Hitler 1936-1945 Nemesis' W.W.Norton and Company 2000 ISBN:0-393-04994-9
    Ian Kershaw 'Hitler 1889-1936 Hubris' W.W.Norton and Company 1998 ISBN:0-393-04671-0
    Ron Rosenbaum 'Explaining Hitler' Random House 1998 ISBN:0-679-43151-9
    John Toland 'Adolf Hitler' The Definitive Biography 1976 ISBN:0-385-42053-6.

    I shall be happy to provide selected quotations from each work once I have access to them at the end of the month.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  57. #56  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    dan, you appear - from a cursory glance - to be posting accurate information. However, this is not reflected in your own statements on the subject.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  58. #57  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    1,034
    Quote Originally Posted by Beer w/Straw View Post
    Let Ferdinand live.
    My information is all you'd need.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  59. #58  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    The assassination of the Archduke has been described as the spark that ignited the tinderbox. With a live Archduke, the tinderbox was still there, waiting for that inevitable ignition. (Read The Guns of August.)
    grmpysmrf likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  60. #59  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope cosmictraveler's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Key West, Florida, Earth
    Posts
    4,789
    You are discouting the Japanese? Just a question.....as they were a large part of WWII.....well for America
    While what you say is certainly something to mull over I'd still think that the Japanese could have come to a resolution over their problems with America but because hitler wanted them with him he convinced them to enter the war. That;s my opinion. If there was no war in Europe then the Japanese woulds have had a torally different mindset as they were prodded into taking action after America entered the war in Europe.
    Last edited by cosmictraveler; February 8th, 2014 at 09:19 PM.
    When the power of love overcomes the love of power the world will know peace.
    Jimi Hendrix
    Reply With Quote  
     

  61. #60  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    2,408
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    I'm of the mind that history "makes the man," more than the somewhat popular notion that "men make history."

    The conditions were extremely ripe for a rebellious rise of Germany from the ashes of WWI including anger and immense recent suffering from the oppressive restrictions of victors, economic devastation during the 20's, centuries old Christian-based anti-semitism, an extremely innovative people, robust high technology knowledge of industry and education and science. I think any number of political leaders could have filled Hitler's role as the focal point beside Hitler.
    I agree with this. I would even add that Hitler was at best a mediocre politician who got in over his head. When Germany got into the war it was not really ready for it. Even as late as 1943 they were running into shortages of steel for weaponry while at the same time they were inceasing production of things like electric irons to keep the housewives happy.
    A truly competent politician should have been able to prevent a war until he was actually prepared for it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  62. #61  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    His competence as a politician is surely not in doubt: he seduced an entire nation and fooled his neighbours, friend and enemy alike, many times. His primary limitation was as a military strategist.
    grmpysmrf likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  63. #62  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    1,034
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    The assassination of the Archduke has been described as the spark that ignited the tinderbox. With a live Archduke, the tinderbox was still there, waiting for that inevitable ignition. (Read The Guns of August.)
    It was three words. Not a serious statement.

    Especially one that would impress a history teacher for a whole project.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  64. #63  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    2,408
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    dan, you appear - from a cursory glance - to be posting accurate information. However, this is not reflected in your own statements on the subject.
    If you think my timeline is wrong or my interpretation of the motives is wrong I suggest you indicate what you think the mistakes are.
    Otherwise I just have to assume you are simply failing to understand what I said.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  65. #64  
    not ADM!N grmpysmrf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    1,564
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    Your understanding is completely messed up on every point.

    His application to the Vienna academy of arts was made prior to 1910. Following the death of his mother and despite a small pension derived from his father, who had been a customs official, he was homeless and lived for some time in a workingman's hostel.

    He volunteered almost immediately for service on the outbreak of war and relished the conflict. He was a runner for a Bavarian regiment and routinely volunteered for the most hazardous duty. He was awarded the Iron Cross Second Class and later the Iron Cross First Class, the highest award for bravery in the German military.

    After the war, appalled by what he saw as the defeatism in the civilian population (caused, he thought, by the Jews) he allied himself with and then took over a small right wing political group in Munich. He never re-entered the military other than becoming Commander in Chief of the military in '37 or '38.
    Thanks for the run down... apparently I had most of the details just not in the right order. good to know.
    John Galt likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  66. #65  
    not ADM!N grmpysmrf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    1,564
    Quote Originally Posted by dan hunter View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    dan, you appear - from a cursory glance - to be posting accurate information. However, this is not reflected in your own statements on the subject.
    If you think my timeline is wrong or my interpretation of the motives is wrong I suggest you indicate what you think the mistakes are.
    Otherwise I just have to assume you are simply failing to understand what I said.
    He said he would he just can't get to it until the end of the month...

    Hitler was a completely competent politician. the fact that he was able to stock pile weapons and create a gigantic army even in the face of the sanctions that told him not to. then when he got caught he said "sorry" and got a slap on the wrist and continued building. That's a dude with a plan.

    As far as him not being a military strategist. I disagree with that too. Had the US not gotten involved he was on his way to march around the globe and wipe out culture upon culture.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  67. #66  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    2,408
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    His competence as a politician is surely not in doubt: he seduced an entire nation and fooled his neighbours, friend and enemy alike, many times. His primary limitation was as a military strategist.
    I don't know why people worship Hitler so much.
    It was not that he was such a great politicain, it was that the rest of the politicians available were so damn poor, especially in Germany. Hindenburg was senile, Schleicher was a self serving backstabber, Bruning couldn't even defend himself in his own party.

    England, France and Italy were just as bad
    Reply With Quote  
     

  68. #67  
    Theatre Whore babe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Resident of Big Island of Hawai'i since 2003, and in Bayside, Ca. since 1981, Humboldt since 1977
    Posts
    12,440
    Stargate...Mussolini was pretty spineless if you read about him...he followed..the lead...so to speak.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  69. #68  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    2,408
    Quote Originally Posted by grmpysmrf View Post
    Hitler was a completely competent politician. the fact that he was able to stock pile weapons and create a gigantic army even in the face of the sanctions that told him not to. then when he got caught he said "sorry" and got a slap on the wrist and continued building. That's a dude with a plan.

    As far as him not being a military strategist. I disagree with that too. Had the US not gotten involved he was on his way to march around the globe and wipe out culture upon culture.
    Dude, he couldn't even defeat the Soviets.
    babe likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  70. #69  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Hitler was a political strategist, not a military strategist. He was always looking past the battlefield, trying to make sure the victory would have the appropriate political impact. If the USA had him in Afghanistan right now, he might help win the "hearts and minds" battle that's been so hard to win.

    Trouble is, he looked so far past the battles themselves, that he.... didn't win enough of them. And he lost crucial logistics.

    Want to be careful promoting soldiers to the top who win lots of medals for bravery. They might be extremely brave, but they also might be extremely foolish but lucky. Or both.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  71. #70  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    215
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    Hitler was a political strategist, not a military strategist. He was always looking past the battlefield, trying to make sure the victory would have the appropriate political impact. If the USA had him in Afghanistan right now, he might help win the "hearts and minds" battle that's been so hard to win.

    Trouble is, he looked so far past the battles themselves, that he.... didn't win enough of them. And he lost crucial logistics.

    Want to be careful promoting soldiers to the top who win lots of medals for bravery. They might be extremely brave, but they also might be extremely foolish but lucky. Or both.
    And you have to remember he did kill Hitler he can’t be that bad.
    Trivium likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  72. #71  
    not ADM!N grmpysmrf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    1,564
    Quote Originally Posted by dan hunter View Post
    I don't know why people worship Hitler so much.
    ???? who the hell worships Hitler, besides neo nazi and skin head type losers?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  73. #72  
    not ADM!N grmpysmrf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    1,564
    Quote Originally Posted by dan hunter View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by grmpysmrf View Post
    Hitler was a completely competent politician. the fact that he was able to stock pile weapons and create a gigantic army even in the face of the sanctions that told him not to. then when he got caught he said "sorry" and got a slap on the wrist and continued building. That's a dude with a plan.

    As far as him not being a military strategist. I disagree with that too. Had the US not gotten involved he was on his way to march around the globe and wipe out culture upon culture.
    Dude, he couldn't even defeat the Soviets.
    Neither could Napolean
    Reply With Quote  
     

  74. #73  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    2,408
    Quote Originally Posted by grmpysmrf View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by dan hunter View Post
    I don't know why people worship Hitler so much.
    ???? who the hell worships Hitler, besides neo nazi and skin head type losers?
    In my opinion anybody who thinks he was some kind of superhuman figure.

    I don't care whether you regard him as a Satan or a Christ. The truth is he was just another politician, and not even a very astute one.
    He got played by Eden, Stalin, Chamberlain and even Roosevelt.

    I don't know if this will make sense to you, but if Hitler as the evil genious able to singlehandedly plan the conquest of the entire world with everybody else, including his own people, as helpless bystanders does not bring to your mind images of Mike Meyers as Doctor Evil I really don't know what to say.
    I understand why old Adolf is presented as "The Great Satan" and how it allowed everybody else in the great blunderous age after WWI to avoid admitting their own screwups. But really, dont you think such an evil genious would have been able to realize that USSR, USA and Britain would win?

    Hitler as Christ, well there are a few neofascists who want to believe that, but it does not matter much. What is more critical is how Hitler gets used as a propaganda tool.
    When I saw the propaganda machines calling a little dictator like Saddam(by all accounts a fairly nasty ruler) "The Great Hitler" it made me shake my head and look down, embarrassed by our collective lack of intelligence.
    Hitler was just a politician trapped in the flow of his times.

    I repeat, He was not a very good politician and his failure included his own suicide as well as the unnecessary death of millions of other people.
    In the end he was a mook.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  75. #74  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    305
    Quote Originally Posted by dan hunter View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by grmpysmrf View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by dan hunter View Post
    I don't know why people worship Hitler so much.
    ???? who the hell worships Hitler, besides neo nazi and skin head type losers?
    In my opinion anybody who thinks he was some kind of superhuman figure.

    I don't care whether you regard him as a Satan or a Christ. The truth is he was just another politician, and not even a very astute one.
    He got played by Eden, Stalin, Chamberlain and even Roosevelt.

    I don't know if this will make sense to you, but if Hitler as the evil genious able to singlehandedly plan the conquest of the entire world with everybody else, including his own people, as helpless bystanders does not bring to your mind images of Mike Meyers as Doctor Evil I really don't know what to say.
    I understand why old Adolf is presented as "The Great Satan" and how it allowed everybody else in the great blunderous age after WWI to avoid admitting their own screwups. But really, dont you think such an evil genious would have been able to realize that USSR, USA and Britain would win?

    Hitler as Christ, well there are a few neofascists who want to believe that, but it does not matter much. What is more critical is how Hitler gets used as a propaganda tool.
    When I saw the propaganda machines calling a little dictator like Saddam(by all accounts a fairly nasty ruler) "The Great Hitler" it made me shake my head and look down, embarrassed by our collective lack of intelligence.
    Hitler was just a politician trapped in the flow of his times.

    I repeat, He was not a very good politician and his failure included his own suicide as well as the unnecessary death of millions of other people.
    In the end he was a mook.
    Not really. Hitler enjoyed a comfortable life (in his later years anyway) while he reigned supreme over Europe, and then killed himself peacefully (after he got married). Hardly a failure.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  76. #75  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    1,839
    After reading all of the comments I want to think that the whole question is not about WW2, but could we change our past if we did things differently? Could Hitler or anyone become something else in the future if they did something different in the past? This is a complicated question. If we were able to change the past the future would also change, and as I see it life could not predict itself. I hope someone can pick up what I am eluding to.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  77. #76  
    not ADM!N grmpysmrf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    1,564
    Quote Originally Posted by dan hunter View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by grmpysmrf View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by dan hunter View Post
    I don't know why people worship Hitler so much.
    ???? who the hell worships Hitler, besides neo nazi and skin head type losers?
    In my opinion anybody who thinks he was some kind of superhuman figure.

    I don't care whether you regard him as a Satan or a Christ. The truth is he was just another politician, and not even a very astute one.
    He got played by Eden, Stalin, Chamberlain and even Roosevelt.

    I don't know if this will make sense to you, but if Hitler as the evil genious able to singlehandedly plan the conquest of the entire world with everybody else, including his own people, as helpless bystanders does not bring to your mind images of Mike Meyers as Doctor Evil I really don't know what to say.
    I understand why old Adolf is presented as "The Great Satan" and how it allowed everybody else in the great blunderous age after WWI to avoid admitting their own screwups. But really, dont you think such an evil genious would have been able to realize that USSR, USA and Britain would win?

    Hitler as Christ, well there are a few neofascists who want to believe that, but it does not matter much. What is more critical is how Hitler gets used as a propaganda tool.
    When I saw the propaganda machines calling a little dictator like Saddam(by all accounts a fairly nasty ruler) "The Great Hitler" it made me shake my head and look down, embarrassed by our collective lack of intelligence.
    Hitler was just a politician trapped in the flow of his times.

    I repeat, He was not a very good politician and his failure included his own suicide as well as the unnecessary death of millions of other people.
    In the end he was a mook.
    I disagree about the politician thing.

    He seemed to be a very efficient killing machine and made multiple countries join forces to resist him and bring Germany down. I think people pay attention to what he did accomplish and not necessarily his short comings, given the situation.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  78. #77  
    Theatre Whore babe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Resident of Big Island of Hawai'i since 2003, and in Bayside, Ca. since 1981, Humboldt since 1977
    Posts
    12,440
    My mother lived through Hitler's soldiers.

    It was evil.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  79. #78  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Quote Originally Posted by Trivium View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by dan hunter
    I repeat, He was not a very good politician and his failure included his own suicide as well as the unnecessary death of millions of other people.
    In the end he was a mook.
    Not really. Hitler enjoyed a comfortable life (in his later years anyway) while he reigned supreme over Europe, and then killed himself peacefully (after he got married). Hardly a failure.

    Depends how you count success I guess. In the end Hitler's cause died. Rather than the adulation and love of millions he now suffers the scorn of billions. He'll be remembered as a scary guy with a silly mustache who killed himself in shame rather than face up to the consequences of his follies.

    But he had it great for a while. If your standard of success is to live comfortably, then probably dictators like Robert Mugabe, or even Kaddaffi, and Saddam Hussein did just as well for themselves, with less hateful memory in history. Mugabe's still in power, and will likely get away with all of his crimes. So Mugabe is better off than Hitler.
    dan hunter likes this.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  80. #79  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    122
    No WWI? No Franco-Prussian War and unification of Germany? No Scramble for Africa, powerful Royal Navy to make Germany envious?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  81. #80  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    305
    How about preventing the Bolshevik revolution instead of using it as a cheap shot at the tsar?
    babe likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •