Discussion:
Could WW2 have been avoided?
(too old to reply)
Bernardz
2003-11-30 14:51:20 UTC
Permalink
At the end of WW1, almost every German was resentful over the result
particularly the loss of land both in Alsace-Lorraine and Poland. Even
if Hitler had never come to power, a revitalized Germany would have
demanded territory changes in the region nearby.

As in the OTL sooner or later Germany would have demanded that Poland
give something. Poland would have refused. If war breaks out between
Poland and Germany, it would have taken some wise acts of politicians to
have stopped a war from expanding or risk the development of a German
super state in Europe.
Dave J
2003-11-30 16:42:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bernardz
At the end of WW1, almost every German was resentful over the result
particularly the loss of land both in Alsace-Lorraine and Poland. Even
if Hitler had never come to power, a revitalized Germany would have
demanded territory changes in the region nearby.
As in the OTL sooner or later Germany would have demanded that Poland
give something. Poland would have refused. If war breaks out between
Poland and Germany, it would have taken some wise acts of politicians to
have stopped a war from expanding or risk the development of a German
super state in Europe.
I really doubt the war could have been avoided. As you point out, Germany
would end up demanding something Poland wouldn't give, and war would start
there. As long as Britain had a reasonable hope that they could get the US
in on their side, the UK would stay in to the bitter end to see Germany
humbled and paying reparations. Ditto for France. And one really cannot
blame them for that perspective, Germany was the aggressor, PoDs about FDR's
Rainbow 5 paper, who attacked who at Gliewitz, etc aside, Germany was the
bad actor. A line had to be drawn somewhere. I think Czechoslovakia was the
better place to draw that line, as that the Czechs were already mobilized
and dug in.
jlk7e
2003-12-01 00:53:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dave J
Post by Bernardz
At the end of WW1, almost every German was resentful over the result
particularly the loss of land both in Alsace-Lorraine and Poland. Even
if Hitler had never come to power, a revitalized Germany would have
demanded territory changes in the region nearby.
As in the OTL sooner or later Germany would have demanded that Poland
give something. Poland would have refused. If war breaks out between
Poland and Germany, it would have taken some wise acts of politicians to
have stopped a war from expanding or risk the development of a German
super state in Europe.
I really doubt the war could have been avoided. As you point out, Germany
would end up demanding something Poland wouldn't give, and war would start
there. As long as Britain had a reasonable hope that they could get the US
in on their side, the UK would stay in to the bitter end to see Germany
humbled and paying reparations.
You should look at what the British thought about the Poles until ca.
early 1939. Until Hitler got everyone pissed with his bad faith
(particularly Prague in March 39), I don't think there was a British
statesman who'd have been willing to stick his neck out for Poland.
Post by Dave J
I think Czechoslovakia was the
better place to draw that line, as that the Czechs were already mobilized
and dug in.
Again, there wasn't much sense that the Czechs were on the right side
of the argument. After all, the Bohemian Germans did seem to want to
be part of Germany. There was a general sense (especially in Britain)
that Versailles had been unjust. It was only when Hitler pushed past
this, and did things that could not be defended as rectifying the
mistakes of Versailles (particularly his decision to annex the Czech
parts of Czechoslovakia) that the British (and to a lesser extent, the
French) were really on to him.
Stuart Wilkes
2003-12-01 15:41:19 UTC
Permalink
***@juno.com (jlk7e) wrote in message news:<***@posting.google.com>...

<snip>
Post by jlk7e
Again, there wasn't much sense that the Czechs were on the right side
of the argument. After all, the Bohemian Germans did seem to want to
be part of Germany. There was a general sense (especially in Britain)
that Versailles had been unjust. It was only when Hitler pushed past
this, and did things that could not be defended as rectifying the
mistakes of Versailles (particularly his decision to annex the Czech
parts of Czechoslovakia) that the British (and to a lesser extent, the
French) were really on to him.
Actually, the French was indeed "on to him", before Munich, and it
took heavy British pressure, including a threat to leave France alone
to face Germany if France acted to support Czechoslovakia, to get
Daladier to not support Czechoslovakia.

Stuart Wilkes
jlk7e
2003-12-01 20:46:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Stuart Wilkes
<snip>
Post by jlk7e
Again, there wasn't much sense that the Czechs were on the right side
of the argument. After all, the Bohemian Germans did seem to want to
be part of Germany. There was a general sense (especially in Britain)
that Versailles had been unjust. It was only when Hitler pushed past
this, and did things that could not be defended as rectifying the
mistakes of Versailles (particularly his decision to annex the Czech
parts of Czechoslovakia) that the British (and to a lesser extent, the
French) were really on to him.
Actually, the French was indeed "on to him", before Munich, and it
took heavy British pressure, including a threat to leave France alone
to face Germany if France acted to support Czechoslovakia, to get
Daladier to not support Czechoslovakia.
Hmm...yes, the French were very nervous about Hitler (of course, they
were also nervous about Walther Rathenau and Gustav Stresemann...),
but they also didn't want to fight. If they had, why not intervene in
the Rhineland in 1936? Or intervene without Britain in 1938? The
French army was far superior to the German in 1938, the Czech army was
not negligible, and the Soviets were pledged to help. If there had
been a strong French will to fight, they could have done so without
the British.
Louis Epstein
2003-12-03 04:23:19 UTC
Permalink
In alt.history.what-if jlk7e <***@juno.com> wrote:
: ***@my-deja.com (Stuart Wilkes) wrote in message news:<***@posting.google.com>...
:> ***@juno.com (jlk7e) wrote in message news:<***@posting.google.com>...
:>
:> <snip>
:>
:> > Again, there wasn't much sense that the Czechs were on the right side
:> > of the argument. After all, the Bohemian Germans did seem to want to
:> > be part of Germany. There was a general sense (especially in Britain)
:> > that Versailles had been unjust. It was only when Hitler pushed past
:> > this, and did things that could not be defended as rectifying the
:> > mistakes of Versailles (particularly his decision to annex the Czech
:> > parts of Czechoslovakia) that the British (and to a lesser extent, the
:> > French) were really on to him.
:>
:> Actually, the French was indeed "on to him", before Munich, and it
:> took heavy British pressure, including a threat to leave France alone
:> to face Germany if France acted to support Czechoslovakia, to get
:> Daladier to not support Czechoslovakia.

: Hmm...yes, the French were very nervous about Hitler (of course, they
: were also nervous about Walther Rathenau and Gustav Stresemann...),
: but they also didn't want to fight. If they had, why not intervene in
: the Rhineland in 1936? Or intervene without Britain in 1938? The
: French army was far superior to the German in 1938, the Czech army was
: not negligible, and the Soviets were pledged to help. If there had
: been a strong French will to fight, they could have done so without
: the British.

Hindsight,ever crystal clear,makes us wonder why the
European powers didn't intervene in 1934,when the
Third Reich was first proclaimed on Hindenburg's death.
In his year and a half since becoming Chancellor of the
Weimar Republic,Hitler had already given ample cause to
be condemned as a rogue,from the rigged elections to the
Night of Long Knives.

-=-=-
The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again,
at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed.
Athos
2003-12-01 23:17:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Stuart Wilkes
<snip>
Post by jlk7e
Again, there wasn't much sense that the Czechs were on the right side
of the argument. After all, the Bohemian Germans did seem to want to
be part of Germany. There was a general sense (especially in Britain)
that Versailles had been unjust. It was only when Hitler pushed past
this, and did things that could not be defended as rectifying the
mistakes of Versailles (particularly his decision to annex the Czech
parts of Czechoslovakia) that the British (and to a lesser extent, the
French) were really on to him.
Actually, the French was indeed "on to him", before Munich, and it
took heavy British pressure, including a threat to leave France alone
to face Germany if France acted to support Czechoslovakia, to get
Daladier to not support Czechoslovakia.
Stuart Wilkes
Wasn't it Britain that also pushed France away from an alliance with
the USSR?

I think that if you want to avoid WWII then you have to get the
Britain and France to buddy up with the USSR. I'm not sure how you
would do this, Communism would be difficult ideology to ignore but
Germany would never move against Poland without a non-agression pact
with the Soviet Union.
Stuart Wilkes
2003-12-02 21:42:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Athos
Post by Stuart Wilkes
<snip>
Post by jlk7e
Again, there wasn't much sense that the Czechs were on the right side
of the argument. After all, the Bohemian Germans did seem to want to
be part of Germany. There was a general sense (especially in Britain)
that Versailles had been unjust. It was only when Hitler pushed past
this, and did things that could not be defended as rectifying the
mistakes of Versailles (particularly his decision to annex the Czech
parts of Czechoslovakia) that the British (and to a lesser extent, the
French) were really on to him.
Actually, the French was indeed "on to him", before Munich, and it
took heavy British pressure, including a threat to leave France alone
to face Germany if France acted to support Czechoslovakia, to get
Daladier to not support Czechoslovakia.
Stuart Wilkes
Wasn't it Britain that also pushed France away from an alliance with
the USSR?
Oh, no. France and the Soviets had an alliance from May 1935 on. Now
HMG were appalled at this alliance, and set about to wreck the French
European alliance system, but it's not like the French-Soviet alliance
was prevented by the British.
Post by Athos
I think that if you want to avoid WWII then you have to get the
Britain and France to buddy up with the USSR.
You could even leave the Brits out of it.
Post by Athos
I'm not sure how you would do this, Communism would be difficult ideology
to ignore
Well, the French government managed to do this historically.
Post by Athos
but Germany would never move against Poland without a non-agression pact
with the Soviet Union.
Really? How do you know? Hitler never had any respect for the Soviet
military, and Colonel-General Halder, Chief of the German General
Staff was confident of crushing the Poles before the Soviets could act
to support them... assuming the Polish government ever agreed to
accept Soviet aid in the event of a German attack.

Now, if there was a firm French-Soviet alliance supporting Poland,
then Hitler would have been deterred for a while. However, he would
make disrupting that alliance a very high priority, and the instant it
cracked, he would move.

Stuart Wilkes
mike stone
2003-11-30 19:50:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bernardz
As in the OTL sooner or later Germany would have demanded that Poland
give something. Poland would have refused. If war breaks out between
Poland and Germany, it would have taken some wise acts of politicians to
have stopped a war from expanding or risk the development of a German
super state in Europe.
Depends what has happened previously over Czechoslovakia or whtever.

Hitler's crucial; "mistake" (assuming he didn't aim at all out war all along)
was not Poland, but Prague - the first territory he took not inhabited by
Germans.

Had he not done that, his claims to Danzig would very likely have been accepted
by the powers - after all, its population was more solidly German than that of
the Sudentenland - and if Poland defied him and them, she would most probably
have been left to her fate. If she lost the ensuing war, she would have got
little sympathy when the victorious Germans upped their demands and, say,
reclaimed their 1914 border. "If you appeal to arms, that's the chance you
take"

If the German government (presumably a military one - about the only practical
alternative to Hitler) were content wwith these sort of limited objectives, I
don't see why there need have been war, given that the democracies were
absolutely desperate to avoid one
--
Mike Stone - Peterborough England

Call nothing true until it has been officially denied
Matt Giwer
2003-12-01 05:26:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by mike stone
Depends what has happened previously over Czechoslovakia or whtever.
Hitler's crucial; "mistake" (assuming he didn't aim at all out war all along)
was not Poland, but Prague - the first territory he took not inhabited by
Germans.
Had he not done that, his claims to Danzig would very likely have been accepted
by the powers - after all, its population was more solidly German than that of
the Sudentenland - and if Poland defied him and them, she would most probably
have been left to her fate. If she lost the ensuing war, she would have got
little sympathy when the victorious Germans upped their demands and, say,
reclaimed their 1914 border. "If you appeal to arms, that's the chance you
take"
The problem with that scenario is the same as with the UN. "accepted by the powers"
assumes the powers had an objective of righting wrongs, truth, justice and the Bushian
Way. But they did not. The problem was the League of Nations was dominated by a few powers
looking out for their national advantage and using the LoN as a means to that end. It was
exactly the same as the UN.

It is as though the purpose of the US was for some states to control the actions of other
states for advantage. Uniform rules were fine but that is not the way the game was played
in the LoN. The very fact that Britain had to be consulted demonstrates that. If some are
more equal than others then there is no difference with or without.
Post by mike stone
If the German government (presumably a military one - about the only practical
alternative to Hitler) were content wwith these sort of limited objectives, I
don't see why there need have been war, given that the democracies were
absolutely desperate to avoid one
No matter what the government it would be required to obtain the approval of England
rather than as an equal member of the LoN. That is the prescription for war.
--
The logic behind "support our troops in Iraq" while
keeping them there is to save them from the depravity
of the President who sent them there.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 2910
David Johnston
2003-12-01 06:15:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Matt Giwer
Post by mike stone
Depends what has happened previously over Czechoslovakia or whtever.
Hitler's crucial; "mistake" (assuming he didn't aim at all out war all along)
was not Poland, but Prague - the first territory he took not inhabited by
Germans.
Had he not done that, his claims to Danzig would very likely have been accepted
by the powers - after all, its population was more solidly German than that of
the Sudentenland - and if Poland defied him and them, she would most probably
have been left to her fate. If she lost the ensuing war, she would have got
little sympathy when the victorious Germans upped their demands and, say,
reclaimed their 1914 border. "If you appeal to arms, that's the chance you
take"
The problem with that scenario is the same as with the UN. "accepted by the powers"
assumes the powers had an objective of righting wrongs, truth, justice and the Bushian
Way. But they did not. The problem was the League of Nations was dominated by a few powers
looking out for their national advantage and using the LoN as a means to that end. It was
exactly the same as the UN.
How is that a problem with that scenario? Those powers were _exactly_
the powers who were prepared to let Germany rearm and absorb nearby
German speaking nations without a fight.
Post by Matt Giwer
Post by mike stone
If the German government (presumably a military one - about the only practical
alternative to Hitler) were content wwith these sort of limited objectives, I
don't see why there need have been war, given that the democracies were
absolutely desperate to avoid one
No matter what the government it would be required to obtain the approval of England
rather than as an equal member of the LoN. That is the prescription for war.
No, it isn't. All that is necessary is to replace Hitler with a
leader who knew how far to to push Britain, and not to go further.
Matt Giwer
2003-12-01 08:18:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Johnston
Post by Matt Giwer
Post by mike stone
Depends what has happened previously over Czechoslovakia or whtever.
Hitler's crucial; "mistake" (assuming he didn't aim at all out war all along)
was not Poland, but Prague - the first territory he took not inhabited by
Germans.
Had he not done that, his claims to Danzig would very likely have been accepted
by the powers - after all, its population was more solidly German than that of
the Sudentenland - and if Poland defied him and them, she would most probably
have been left to her fate. If she lost the ensuing war, she would have got
little sympathy when the victorious Germans upped their demands and, say,
reclaimed their 1914 border. "If you appeal to arms, that's the chance you
take"
The problem with that scenario is the same as with the UN. "accepted by the powers"
assumes the powers had an objective of righting wrongs, truth, justice and the Bushian
Way. But they did not. The problem was the League of Nations was dominated by a few powers
looking out for their national advantage and using the LoN as a means to that end. It was
exactly the same as the UN.
How is that a problem with that scenario? Those powers were _exactly_
the powers who were prepared to let Germany rearm and absorb nearby
German speaking nations without a fight.
How was anyone prepared? Germany was not a member of the LoN and when dealing with it the
LoN sent the delegates those who rule the LoN wanted?

I detest politics not for what it is but for what it pretends it is not.
Post by David Johnston
Post by Matt Giwer
Post by mike stone
If the German government (presumably a military one - about the only practical
alternative to Hitler) were content wwith these sort of limited objectives, I
don't see why there need have been war, given that the democracies were
absolutely desperate to avoid one
No matter what the government it would be required to obtain the approval of England
rather than as an equal member of the LoN. That is the prescription for war.
No, it isn't. All that is necessary is to replace Hitler with a
leader who knew how far to to push Britain, and not to go further.
QED

Thank you for proving my case the issue of Europe was not Europe but England dominating
Europe.
--
2003 Nov 8: Major combat resumes in Iraq.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 2919
David Johnston
2003-12-02 07:23:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Matt Giwer
Post by David Johnston
Post by Matt Giwer
Post by mike stone
Depends what has happened previously over Czechoslovakia or whtever.
Hitler's crucial; "mistake" (assuming he didn't aim at all out war all along)
was not Poland, but Prague - the first territory he took not inhabited by
Germans.
Had he not done that, his claims to Danzig would very likely have been accepted
by the powers - after all, its population was more solidly German than that of
the Sudentenland - and if Poland defied him and them, she would most probably
have been left to her fate. If she lost the ensuing war, she would have got
little sympathy when the victorious Germans upped their demands and, say,
reclaimed their 1914 border. "If you appeal to arms, that's the chance you
take"
The problem with that scenario is the same as with the UN. "accepted by the powers"
assumes the powers had an objective of righting wrongs, truth, justice and the Bushian
Way. But they did not. The problem was the League of Nations was dominated by a few powers
looking out for their national advantage and using the LoN as a means to that end. It was
exactly the same as the UN.
How is that a problem with that scenario? Those powers were _exactly_
the powers who were prepared to let Germany rearm and absorb nearby
German speaking nations without a fight.
How was anyone prepared?
By being willing.

Germany was not a member of the LoN and when dealing with it the
Post by Matt Giwer
LoN sent the delegates those who rule the LoN wanted?
What are you jabbering about?
Post by Matt Giwer
I detest politics not for what it is but for what it pretends it is not.
Post by David Johnston
Post by Matt Giwer
Post by mike stone
If the German government (presumably a military one - about the only practical
alternative to Hitler) were content wwith these sort of limited objectives, I
don't see why there need have been war, given that the democracies were
absolutely desperate to avoid one
No matter what the government it would be required to obtain the approval of England
rather than as an equal member of the LoN. That is the prescription for war.
No, it isn't. All that is necessary is to replace Hitler with a
leader who knew how far to to push Britain, and not to go further.
QED
Thank you for proving my case the issue of Europe was not Europe but England dominating
Europe.
I don't give a rat's ass about your case. The issue is whether WW2
could have been avoided.
jlk7e
2003-11-30 20:29:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bernardz
At the end of WW1, almost every German was resentful over the result
particularly the loss of land both in Alsace-Lorraine and Poland. Even
if Hitler had never come to power, a revitalized Germany would have
demanded territory changes in the region nearby.
Not in the west. Locarno saw the Germans agreeing to the territorial
status quo there.
Post by Bernardz
As in the OTL sooner or later Germany would have demanded that Poland
give something. Poland would have refused. If war breaks out between
Poland and Germany, it would have taken some wise acts of politicians to
have stopped a war from expanding or risk the development of a German
super state in Europe.
Hmm...I'm not sure of this. If you can somehow make Weimar
successful, I think that, over time, people would stop worrying so
much about the Corridor, and what not. If Weimar fails, and is
replaced by a right wing revisionist regime of whatever stripe, a war
is very likely. But without Hitler's bad faith in Czechoslovakia, I
think it's quite likely that such a war would be a localized affair,
and that it probably wouldn't end with Germany ruling over all of
Poland. The militarists might also accept some sort of mediation that
gave them part, but not all, of what they wanted. Other than the
Nazis, nobody in Germany was very eager for an actual war - they liked
Hitler's non-violent foreign policy triumphs, but were very leery of
actual war, especially one that would involve the British and French.
Bernardz
2003-12-01 12:06:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by jlk7e
Post by Bernardz
At the end of WW1, almost every German was resentful over the result
particularly the loss of land both in Alsace-Lorraine and Poland. Even
if Hitler had never come to power, a revitalized Germany would have
demanded territory changes in the region nearby.
Not in the west. Locarno saw the Germans agreeing to the territorial
status quo there.
As soon as France fell in the OTL, Germany took it back.

See (a) below.
Post by jlk7e
Post by Bernardz
As in the OTL sooner or later Germany would have demanded that Poland
give something. Poland would have refused. If war breaks out between
Poland and Germany, it would have taken some wise acts of politicians to
have stopped a war from expanding or risk the development of a German
super state in Europe.
Hmm...I'm not sure of this. If you can somehow make Weimar
successful, I think that, over time, people would stop worrying so
much about the Corridor, and what not.
Don't be so sure.

(a)
Even in the period of the Weimar republic, Stresemann a moderate, was
calling for border adjustments with Belgium and in the East. In
particular he called for protection for 10 to 12 million Germans living
under foreign yoke, recovering Danzig and the Corridor and revising the
frontier in Upper Silesia. Nor did you rule out getting back Alsace-
Lorraine.

Towards the end of the Weimar republic, Bruning and his successors were
more insistent.
Post by jlk7e
If Weimar fails, and is
replaced by a right wing revisionist regime of whatever stripe, a war
is very likely.
Agreed.
Post by jlk7e
But without Hitler's bad faith in Czechoslovakia, I
think it's quite likely that such a war would be a localized affair,
and that it probably wouldn't end with Germany ruling over all of
Poland. The militarists might also accept some sort of mediation that
gave them part, but not all, of what they wanted. Other than the
Nazis, nobody in Germany was very eager for an actual war - they liked
Hitler's non-violent foreign policy triumphs, but were very leery of
actual war, especially one that would involve the British and French.
This is all quite possible. Two wild cards here
1) Czechoslovakia was different in the sense that it never came to
actual war. The second time round the world had no chance to react as
Hitler was too fast. In Poland the fighting would go on for a month or
two.
2) The Soviets had there own border dispute with Poland and a long term
concern over the German border. Once Poland falls, Russia and Germany
have a common border.
--
Intelligence does not imply reason or purpose

17th saying of Bernard
mike stone
2003-12-01 15:32:02 UTC
Permalink
As soon as France fell in the OTL, Germany took it [Alsace-Lorraine]back.
Sure they did - once it had come to war.Doesn't mean they would have gone to
war specifically for it.

After all, Hitler never claimed South Tyrol (which probably meant more to him
as an Austrian than A/L ever had) as long as Italy remained in his camp. Yet
once Italy defected in 1943 he promptly took S Tyrol and more besides. There
was no longer any reason not to. FTM, Britain and France didn't go to war in
1914 to acquire Palestine and Syria from Turkey - yet having possession of
those places in _1918_, they kept them. That's how it often works
Even in the period of the Weimar republic, Stresemann a moderate, was
calling for border adjustments with Belgium and in the East. In
particular he called for protection for 10 to 12 million Germans living
under foreign yoke, recovering Danzig and the Corridor and revising the
frontier in Upper Silesia. Nor did you rule out getting back Alsace-
Lorraine.
Towards the end of the Weimar republic, Bruning and his successors were
more insistent.
But why should this necessarily require war?

After all, in the Reconstructionist South, many quite moderate "Stresemann"
types were demanding withdrawal of Union occupation troops and an end to
Federal interference in the internal affairs of Southern states. In the end, as
Reconstruction unravelled (for reasons similar in many ways to those for the
unravelling of Versailles) they got their way, and virtually all their demands
were met. Yet this did not lead to a Second Civil War. Quite the contrary, the
peace and reconciliation between North and South was strengthened, to the point
where there would soon be ex-Rebs in the US Cabinet, and within a couple of
generations northerners as well as southerners were flocking to watch BoaN and
GWTW

FTM, as soon as the Allies conceded the essential demands of Kemal and the
Turkish nationalists, the Turks settled down quite happily and the resulting
peace (bar one very minor spat in Cyprus) has endured to the present day. And
eighty years is a darned good run for a peace treaty

Is there any particular reason (once dear old Adolf is removed from the
equation) why things couldn't have turned out similarly in Europe?
Post by jlk7e
But without Hitler's bad faith in Czechoslovakia, I
think it's quite likely that such a war would be a localized affair,
and that it probably wouldn't end with Germany ruling over all of
Poland. The militarists might also accept some sort of mediation that
gave them part, but not all, of what they wanted. Other than the
Nazis, nobody in Germany was very eager for an actual war - they liked
Hitler's non-violent foreign policy triumphs, but were very leery of
actual war, especially one that would involve the British and French.
This is all quite possible. Two wild cards here
1) Czechoslovakia was different in the sense that it never came to
actual war. The second time round the world had no chance to react as
Hitler was too fast. In Poland the fighting would go on for a month or
two.
2) The Soviets had there own border dispute with Poland and a long term
concern over the German border. Once Poland falls, Russia and Germany
have a common border.
--
Mike Stone - Peterborough England

Call nothing true until it has been officially denied
Oliver Neukum
2003-12-01 16:20:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by mike stone
FTM, as soon as the Allies conceded the essential demands of Kemal and the
Turkish nationalists, the Turks settled down quite happily and the
resulting peace (bar one very minor spat in Cyprus) has endured to the
present day. And eighty years is a darned good run for a peace treaty
Is there any particular reason (once dear old Adolf is removed from the
equation) why things couldn't have turned out similarly in Europe?
Danzig and the corridor. A solution acceptable to both Poland and Germany
was impossible. They were too large and too painfully located for Germany
to live with it.

Regards
Oliver
mike stone
2003-12-01 17:29:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Oliver Neukum
Danzig and the corridor. A solution acceptable to both Poland and Germany
was impossible. They were too large and too painfully located for Germany
to live with it.
But that does not have to lead to war between Germany and the western powers -
unless Germany's behaviour in the previous few years convinces the latter that
this claim won't be the last one
--
Mike Stone - Peterborough England

Call nothing true until it has been officially denied
Oliver Neukum
2003-12-01 23:28:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by mike stone
Post by Oliver Neukum
Danzig and the corridor. A solution acceptable to both Poland and Germany
was impossible. They were too large and too painfully located for Germany
to live with it.
But that does not have to lead to war between Germany and the western powers -
unless Germany's behaviour in the previous few years convinces the latter
that this claim won't be the last one
Yes, but a war between Poland and Germany (probably with Soviet
intervention) was inevitable. Unless somebody did a preventive strike
on Germany.
How plausible was a Polish attack around 1935? What would the western
reaction have been?

Regards
Oliver
mike stone
2003-12-02 09:07:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Oliver Neukum
Yes, but a war between Poland and Germany (probably with Soviet
intervention) was inevitable.
Agreed - but that ain't WW2. It's just a border conflict out in the back of
beyond. Russia advances to the Curzon Line, Germany to (probably) the 1914
border, and the rest of Poland is left as a buffer zone ebtween them.
Post by Oliver Neukum
Unless somebody did a preventive strike
on Germany.
How plausible was a Polish attack around 1935? What would the western
reaction have been?
Poland gets condemned as an aggressor by the League of Nations - and probably
knifed in the back by Russia
--
Mike Stone - Peterborough England

Call nothing true until it has been officially denied
Dave J
2003-12-01 18:18:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Oliver Neukum
Post by mike stone
FTM, as soon as the Allies conceded the essential demands of Kemal and the
Turkish nationalists, the Turks settled down quite happily and the
resulting peace (bar one very minor spat in Cyprus) has endured to the
present day. And eighty years is a darned good run for a peace treaty
Is there any particular reason (once dear old Adolf is removed from the
equation) why things couldn't have turned out similarly in Europe?
Danzig and the corridor. A solution acceptable to both Poland and Germany
was impossible. They were too large and too painfully located for Germany
to live with it.
Regards
Oliver
Exactly. Why didn't the Brits and French, when redrawing Germany and
Poland's borders, figure out a way to make East Prussia contiguous to
Germany, shave off some of E. P. to give Poland Baltic access to the east?
It is almost like they wanted this to be a problem in the future.
jlk7e
2003-12-02 06:23:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Oliver Neukum
Post by mike stone
FTM, as soon as the Allies conceded the essential demands of Kemal and the
Turkish nationalists, the Turks settled down quite happily and the
resulting peace (bar one very minor spat in Cyprus) has endured to the
present day. And eighty years is a darned good run for a peace treaty
Is there any particular reason (once dear old Adolf is removed from the
equation) why things couldn't have turned out similarly in Europe?
Danzig and the corridor. A solution acceptable to both Poland and Germany
was impossible. They were too large and too painfully located for Germany
to live with it.
Is this really so? Given no depression, no fall of Weimar, and so
forth, and given the extent of the aversion to war even in Germany,
how likely is such a war? Certainly if the Allies make clear they
will stand by Poland, I can't see any German government bringing
things to the point of war. And even if they don't, I'm not sure how
it would come about. Hitler essentially had to manufacture the war
wholesale. There was no actual external crisis to spark a war in all
the period between the resolution of the Upper Silesian mess and the
actual beginning of war in 39. I think you need a right wing
revisionist regime of some sort to get a war. I suppose then it comes
down to whether or not such a regime is inevitable.
Oliver Neukum
2003-12-02 13:27:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by jlk7e
Post by Oliver Neukum
Post by mike stone
FTM, as soon as the Allies conceded the essential demands of Kemal and
the Turkish nationalists, the Turks settled down quite happily and the
resulting peace (bar one very minor spat in Cyprus) has endured to the
present day. And eighty years is a darned good run for a peace treaty
Is there any particular reason (once dear old Adolf is removed from the
equation) why things couldn't have turned out similarly in Europe?
Danzig and the corridor. A solution acceptable to both Poland and Germany
was impossible. They were too large and too painfully located for Germany
to live with it.
Is this really so? Given no depression, no fall of Weimar, and so
forth, and given the extent of the aversion to war even in Germany,
how likely is such a war? Certainly if the Allies make clear they
will stand by Poland, I can't see any German government bringing
things to the point of war. And even if they don't, I'm not sure how
But they wouldn't make that guarantee without previous provocations.
No French or British politican could credibly state that his soldiers
were willing to die to keep Danzig out of Germany.
Post by jlk7e
it would come about. Hitler essentially had to manufacture the war
wholesale. There was no actual external crisis to spark a war in all
the period between the resolution of the Upper Silesian mess and the
actual beginning of war in 39. I think you need a right wing
revisionist regime of some sort to get a war. I suppose then it comes
down to whether or not such a regime is inevitable.
Why? Rebuilding the army to the level needed to deal with Poland
was popular. Sooner or later it was bound to happen.
Given a German rearmament a Danzig politican would run on a
"Heim ins Reich" platform and the confrontation is there.

Fighting small winnable wars which reunite minorities with the
fatherland were always popular.
Even forming a German-Soviet-Lithuanian coalition against Poland
would have been easy.

Some incidents would occur or if necessary be manufactured and
salami tactics employed.

Regards
Oliver
mike stone
2003-12-02 15:22:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by jlk7e
Given no depression, no fall of Weimar, and so
Post by jlk7e
forth, and given the extent of the aversion to war even in Germany,
how likely is such a war? Certainly if the Allies make clear they
will stand by Poland, I can't see any German government bringing
things to the point of war. And even if they don't, I'm not sure how
But they wouldn't make that guarantee without previous provocations.
No French or British politican could credibly state that his soldiers
were willing to die to keep Danzig out of Germany.
I tend to feel that whenever this question is discussed two separate issues get
muddled up.

OTOH, there is the question of whether the ToV could ever have been enforced,
or Germany persuaded to accept it as a reasonably just peace. For my money, the
answer to that is definitely no

OTO, accepting that the undoing of Versailles is inevitable, that still leaves
open the question of whether that undoing had to lead to general war. I don't
see why at all. Surely the whole history of the Appeasement era demonstrates
that GB and France were willing to bend over backwards to avoid such a war, and
make very substantial concessions once it was clear that peace depended on it.
Obviously, most of the concessions were to be at someone else's expense -
that's the sensible way to make them - but I gather that Chamberlain at least
was willing to throw in colonies - either Germany' old ones or an equivalent -
had Hitler shown a serious desire for them. In this atmosphere, to suggest that
a peaceful settlerment was impossible seems to me absurd. It didn't happen
because Hitler didn't really want it to happen. "Hitler's War" is a pretty
accurate term for WW2
--
Mike Stone - Peterborough England

Call nothing true until it has been officially denied
a.d.danilecki
2003-12-02 08:33:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by mike stone
As soon as France fell in the OTL, Germany took it [Alsace-Lorraine]back.
Sure they did - once it had come to war.Doesn't mean they would have gone to
war specifically for it.
And why not? Hitler mentioned that he attacked Poland first exactly
because wanted to have protected rear before defeating France.
mike stone
2003-12-02 08:59:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by a.d.danilecki
Post by mike stone
From: Bernardz
As soon as France fell in the OTL, Germany took it [Alsace-Lorraine]back.
Sure they did - once it had come to war.Doesn't mean they would have gone
to
Post by mike stone
war specifically for it.
And why not? Hitler mentioned that he attacked Poland first exactly
because wanted to have protected rear before defeating France.
When exactly did he say that? Iirc even after the outbreak of war he was saying
that he had no claims to make upon France.

And sans (or should that be ohne?) Hitler, the question is even less likely to
arise. Stresemann - not exactly a leftist - had written A/L off as far back as
1925
--
Mike Stone - Peterborough England

Call nothing true until it has been officially denied
Stuart Wilkes
2003-12-03 16:14:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by mike stone
Post by a.d.danilecki
Post by mike stone
From: Bernardz
As soon as France fell in the OTL, Germany took it [Alsace-Lorraine]back.
Sure they did - once it had come to war.Doesn't mean they would have gone
to
Post by a.d.danilecki
Post by mike stone
war specifically for it.
And why not? Hitler mentioned that he attacked Poland first exactly
because wanted to have protected rear before defeating France.
When exactly did he say that?
His speech to his military commanders, 22 August 1939:

"It was clear to me that a conflict with Poland had to come sooner or
later. I had already made this decision in the spring, but I thought
that I would first turn against the West in a few years, and only
after that turn against the East. But the sequence of these things
cannot be fixed. Nor should one close one's eyes to threatening
situations. I wanted first of all to establish a tolerable
relationship with Poland in order to fight against the West. But this
plan, which appealed to me, could not be executed, as fundamental
points had changed. It became clear to me that, in the event of a
conflict with the West, Poland would attack us." KEith Eubank "The
Road to World War II - A Documentary History" pg 260, citing
"Documents on German Foreign Policy", Series D, Vol VII, pgs 200 -
204.
Post by mike stone
Iirc even after the outbreak of war he was
saying that he had no claims to make upon France.
Hitler did and said a lot of things to ensure that he could attack his
victims one by one.

Stuart Wilkes
a.d.danilecki
2003-12-04 08:08:22 UTC
Permalink
http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/people/h/hitler-adolf/hitler-and-poland.html

"It was clear to me that a conflict with Poland had to come sooner or
later. I had already made this decision in Spring. [Apparently this
referred to (L-79).] But I thought I would first turn against the West
in a few years, and only afterwards against the East. But the sequence
cannot be fixed. One cannot close one's eyes even before a threatening
situation. I wanted to establish an acceptable relationship with
Poland, in order to fight first against the West, but this plan which
was agreeable to me could not be executed, since essential points have
changed. "
jlk7e
2003-12-01 20:50:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bernardz
Post by jlk7e
Post by Bernardz
At the end of WW1, almost every German was resentful over the result
particularly the loss of land both in Alsace-Lorraine and Poland. Even
if Hitler had never come to power, a revitalized Germany would have
demanded territory changes in the region nearby.
Not in the west. Locarno saw the Germans agreeing to the territorial
status quo there.
As soon as France fell in the OTL, Germany took it back.
Yes, but they wouldn't have started a war for that purpose.
Post by Bernardz
See (a) below.
Post by jlk7e
Post by Bernardz
As in the OTL sooner or later Germany would have demanded that Poland
give something. Poland would have refused. If war breaks out between
Poland and Germany, it would have taken some wise acts of politicians to
have stopped a war from expanding or risk the development of a German
super state in Europe.
Hmm...I'm not sure of this. If you can somehow make Weimar
successful, I think that, over time, people would stop worrying so
much about the Corridor, and what not.
Don't be so sure.
(a)
Even in the period of the Weimar republic, Stresemann a moderate, was
calling for border adjustments with Belgium and in the East. In
particular he called for protection for 10 to 12 million Germans living
under foreign yoke, recovering Danzig and the Corridor and revising the
frontier in Upper Silesia. Nor did you rule out getting back Alsace-
Lorraine.
Yes he did. At Locarno in 1925.
Post by Bernardz
Towards the end of the Weimar republic, Bruning and his successors were
more insistent.
Uh huh. But I don't think any of them was willing to actually start a
war with those goals - certainly not one which would carry the risk of
British and French intervention.
Post by Bernardz
Post by jlk7e
If Weimar fails, and is
replaced by a right wing revisionist regime of whatever stripe, a war
is very likely.
Agreed.
Post by jlk7e
But without Hitler's bad faith in Czechoslovakia, I
think it's quite likely that such a war would be a localized affair,
and that it probably wouldn't end with Germany ruling over all of
Poland. The militarists might also accept some sort of mediation that
gave them part, but not all, of what they wanted. Other than the
Nazis, nobody in Germany was very eager for an actual war - they liked
Hitler's non-violent foreign policy triumphs, but were very leery of
actual war, especially one that would involve the British and French.
This is all quite possible. Two wild cards here
1) Czechoslovakia was different in the sense that it never came to
actual war. The second time round the world had no chance to react as
Hitler was too fast. In Poland the fighting would go on for a month or
two.
2) The Soviets had there own border dispute with Poland and a long term
concern over the German border. Once Poland falls, Russia and Germany
have a common border.
The Soviets and the German army were actually quite tight. An
agreement over Poland is to be expected, I think. They could even do
it such that a rump Poland acts as a buffer - Germany takes back Upper
Silesia, West Prussia, Posen, Russia takes the eastern territories it
took OTL - the rest of Poland stays as an independent buffer state
between the USSR and Germany.
Bernardz
2003-12-02 08:35:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by jlk7e
Post by Bernardz
Post by jlk7e
Post by Bernardz
At the end of WW1, almost every German was resentful over the result
particularly the loss of land both in Alsace-Lorraine and Poland. Even
if Hitler had never come to power, a revitalized Germany would have
demanded territory changes in the region nearby.
Not in the west. Locarno saw the Germans agreeing to the territorial
status quo there.
As soon as France fell in the OTL, Germany took it back.
Yes, but they wouldn't have started a war for that purpose.
Post by Bernardz
See (a) below.
Post by jlk7e
Post by Bernardz
As in the OTL sooner or later Germany would have demanded that Poland
give something. Poland would have refused. If war breaks out between
Poland and Germany, it would have taken some wise acts of politicians to
have stopped a war from expanding or risk the development of a German
super state in Europe.
Hmm...I'm not sure of this. If you can somehow make Weimar
successful, I think that, over time, people would stop worrying so
much about the Corridor, and what not.
Don't be so sure.
(a)
Even in the period of the Weimar republic, Stresemann a moderate, was
calling for border adjustments with Belgium and in the East. In
particular he called for protection for 10 to 12 million Germans living
under foreign yoke, recovering Danzig and the Corridor and revising the
frontier in Upper Silesia. Nor did you rule out getting back Alsace-
Lorraine.
Yes he did. At Locarno in 1925.
I don't think that any significant German politician intended to honor
Locarno as such. It was seen as a way of getting rid of the earlier
agreements. None of these comments by Stresemann were ever taken back.
Post by jlk7e
Post by Bernardz
Towards the end of the Weimar republic, Bruning and his successors were
more insistent.
Uh huh. But I don't think any of them was willing to actually start a
war with those goals - certainly not one which would carry the risk of
British and French intervention.
Well neither did Hitler or the British in 1939. Both ended out in a war
that they did not want.
Post by jlk7e
Post by Bernardz
Post by jlk7e
If Weimar fails, and is
replaced by a right wing revisionist regime of whatever stripe, a war
is very likely.
Agreed.
Post by jlk7e
But without Hitler's bad faith in Czechoslovakia, I
think it's quite likely that such a war would be a localized affair,
and that it probably wouldn't end with Germany ruling over all of
Poland. The militarists might also accept some sort of mediation that
gave them part, but not all, of what they wanted. Other than the
Nazis, nobody in Germany was very eager for an actual war - they liked
Hitler's non-violent foreign policy triumphs, but were very leery of
actual war, especially one that would involve the British and French.
This is all quite possible. Two wild cards here
1) Czechoslovakia was different in the sense that it never came to
actual war. The second time round the world had no chance to react as
Hitler was too fast. In Poland the fighting would go on for a month or
two.
2) The Soviets had there own border dispute with Poland and a long term
concern over the German border. Once Poland falls, Russia and Germany
have a common border.
The Soviets and the German army were actually quite tight. An
agreement over Poland is to be expected, I think. They could even do
it such that a rump Poland acts as a buffer - Germany takes back Upper
Silesia, West Prussia, Posen, Russia takes the eastern territories it
took OTL - the rest of Poland stays as an independent buffer state
between the USSR and Germany.
In theory yes. However Russia had their own territorial disputes with
Poland. As did several other states nearby eg Lithuania. These Poland
would not agree with either.

Also Poland would not agree to any changes. Any attempt to create such a
change would result in a war between Poland and that state. The war from
Poland point of view would be total.
--
Intelligence does not imply reason or purpose

17th saying of Bernard
Oliver Neukum
2003-12-02 13:39:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bernardz
I don't think that any significant German politician intended to honor
Locarno as such. It was seen as a way of getting rid of the earlier
agreements. None of these comments by Stresemann were ever taken back.
But that doesn't change the cost/benefit analysis of fighting France
for Alsace-Lorraine.

[..]
Post by Bernardz
Post by jlk7e
The Soviets and the German army were actually quite tight. An
agreement over Poland is to be expected, I think. They could even do
it such that a rump Poland acts as a buffer - Germany takes back Upper
Silesia, West Prussia, Posen, Russia takes the eastern territories it
took OTL - the rest of Poland stays as an independent buffer state
between the USSR and Germany.
In theory yes. However Russia had their own territorial disputes with
Poland. As did several other states nearby eg Lithuania. These Poland
would not agree with either.
Also Poland would not agree to any changes. Any attempt to create such a
change would result in a war between Poland and that state. The war from
Poland point of view would be total.
That states more likely. And of course it doesn't make the war any more
winnable to Poland. The Polish situation was basically hopeless.

Regards
Oliver
jlk7e
2003-12-02 19:02:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bernardz
Post by jlk7e
Post by Bernardz
(a)
Even in the period of the Weimar republic, Stresemann a moderate, was
calling for border adjustments with Belgium and in the East. In
particular he called for protection for 10 to 12 million Germans living
under foreign yoke, recovering Danzig and the Corridor and revising the
frontier in Upper Silesia. Nor did you rule out getting back Alsace-
Lorraine.
Yes he did. At Locarno in 1925.
I don't think that any significant German politician intended to honor
Locarno as such. It was seen as a way of getting rid of the earlier
agreements. None of these comments by Stresemann were ever taken back.
No, he viewed Locarno as a compromise, whereby he would abandon German
claims in the west in exchange for explicitly keeping open the
possibility of revision in the east. The comments, indeed, were not
taken back, but I think it's a very unsympathetic reading of
Stresemann to suggest that all he was doing was preparing the way for
another war - revision, certainly, but, if at all possible, peaceful
revision. And if that's not possible, I'm not sure he would've chosen
revision over peace, whatever the rhetoric involved.
Post by Bernardz
Post by jlk7e
Post by Bernardz
Towards the end of the Weimar republic, Bruning and his successors were
more insistent.
Uh huh. But I don't think any of them was willing to actually start a
war with those goals - certainly not one which would carry the risk of
British and French intervention.
Well neither did Hitler or the British in 1939. Both ended out in a war
that they did not want.
Yes, because Hitler was Hitler, and never believed in the possibility
of British and French intervention. One sees that the High Command
and traditional conservatives were always *much* more cautious than
Hitler. And more liberal politicians would be even more so.
Post by Bernardz
Post by jlk7e
The Soviets and the German army were actually quite tight. An
agreement over Poland is to be expected, I think. They could even do
it such that a rump Poland acts as a buffer - Germany takes back Upper
Silesia, West Prussia, Posen, Russia takes the eastern territories it
took OTL - the rest of Poland stays as an independent buffer state
between the USSR and Germany.
In theory yes. However Russia had their own territorial disputes with
Poland. As did several other states nearby eg Lithuania. These Poland
would not agree with either.
Also Poland would not agree to any changes. Any attempt to create such a
change would result in a war between Poland and that state. The war from
Poland point of view would be total.
Hmm...so the Poles wouldn't sign a peace leaving them with a rump?
That certainly seems plausible.
Bernardz
2003-12-03 12:07:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by jlk7e
Post by Bernardz
Post by jlk7e
Post by Bernardz
(a)
Even in the period of the Weimar republic, Stresemann a moderate, was
calling for border adjustments with Belgium and in the East. In
particular he called for protection for 10 to 12 million Germans living
under foreign yoke, recovering Danzig and the Corridor and revising the
frontier in Upper Silesia. Nor did you rule out getting back Alsace-
Lorraine.
Yes he did. At Locarno in 1925.
I don't think that any significant German politician intended to honor
Locarno as such. It was seen as a way of getting rid of the earlier
agreements. None of these comments by Stresemann were ever taken back.
No, he viewed Locarno as a compromise, whereby he would abandon German
claims in the west in exchange for explicitly keeping open the
possibility of revision in the east. The comments, indeed, were not
taken back, but I think it's a very unsympathetic reading of
Stresemann to suggest that all he was doing was preparing the way for
another war - revision, certainly, but, if at all possible, peaceful
revision. And if that's not possible, I'm not sure he would've chosen
revision over peace, whatever the rhetoric involved.
Stresemann was not looking for war, but then again strictly speaking
neither was Hitler in 1939 or Chamberlain either. Sometimes it happens!

What is important is that Stresemann never took these comments back! So
these comment were left hanging for his successor. And after Stresemann
came Bruning and he would have agreed with them as well. He certainly
would have been more aggressive in carrying them out.
Post by jlk7e
Post by Bernardz
Post by jlk7e
Post by Bernardz
Towards the end of the Weimar republic, Bruning and his successors were
more insistent.
Uh huh. But I don't think any of them was willing to actually start a
war with those goals - certainly not one which would carry the risk of
British and French intervention.
Well neither did Hitler or the British in 1939. Both ended out in a war
that they did not want.
Yes, because Hitler was Hitler, and never believed in the possibility
of British and French intervention.
Which is one of my points, Britain and France policies in this period of
the 1920s and 30s ruined their credibility. The British leadership did
not mean it in 1939 when they said that they would go to war over Poland
and more importantly Hitler did not believe them. Logically it made
little sense. Yet Britain and France did mean it.
Post by jlk7e
One sees that the High Command
and traditional conservatives were always *much* more cautious than
Hitler. And more liberal politicians would be even more so.
Agreed.
Post by jlk7e
Post by Bernardz
Post by jlk7e
The Soviets and the German army were actually quite tight. An
agreement over Poland is to be expected, I think. They could even do
it such that a rump Poland acts as a buffer - Germany takes back Upper
Silesia, West Prussia, Posen, Russia takes the eastern territories it
took OTL - the rest of Poland stays as an independent buffer state
between the USSR and Germany.
In theory yes. However Russia had their own territorial disputes with
Poland. As did several other states nearby eg Lithuania. These Poland
would not agree with either.
Also Poland would not agree to any changes. Any attempt to create such a
change would result in a war between Poland and that state. The war from
Poland point of view would be total.
Hmm...so the Poles wouldn't sign a peace leaving them with a rump?
That certainly seems plausible.
--
Intelligence does not imply reason or purpose

17th saying of Bernard
Bruce Munro
2003-11-30 22:28:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bernardz
At the end of WW1, almost every German was resentful over the result
particularly the loss of land both in Alsace-Lorraine and Poland. Even
if Hitler had never come to power, a revitalized Germany would have
demanded territory changes in the region nearby.
As in the OTL sooner or later Germany would have demanded that Poland
give something. Poland would have refused. If war breaks out between
Poland and Germany, it would have taken some wise acts of politicians to
have stopped a war from expanding or risk the development of a German
super state in Europe.
If the Germans don't swallow Czechoslovakia previously and confine
their demands to the Polish coridor, I can the British and French
selling the Poles down the river as easily as they sold the Czechs
OTL.

Bruce Munro
jlk7e
2003-12-01 04:23:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bruce Munro
Post by Bernardz
At the end of WW1, almost every German was resentful over the result
particularly the loss of land both in Alsace-Lorraine and Poland. Even
if Hitler had never come to power, a revitalized Germany would have
demanded territory changes in the region nearby.
As in the OTL sooner or later Germany would have demanded that Poland
give something. Poland would have refused. If war breaks out between
Poland and Germany, it would have taken some wise acts of politicians to
have stopped a war from expanding or risk the development of a German
super state in Europe.
If the Germans don't swallow Czechoslovakia previously and confine
their demands to the Polish coridor, I can the British and French
selling the Poles down the river as easily as they sold the Czechs
OTL.
Even more easily, I suspect. The Poles were widely disliked as
grasping and arrogant. The Czechs, before conveniently becoming
people from a "far away land of which we know little" in time to be
sold out, had been widely sympathized with, and Masaryk and Benes were
widely admired (Beck and Smigly-Rydz, on the other hand, not so
much...)
Matt Giwer
2003-12-01 04:55:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bernardz
At the end of WW1, almost every German was resentful over the result
particularly the loss of land both in Alsace-Lorraine and Poland. Even
if Hitler had never come to power, a revitalized Germany would have
demanded territory changes in the region nearby.
As in the OTL sooner or later Germany would have demanded that Poland
give something. Poland would have refused. If war breaks out between
Poland and Germany, it would have taken some wise acts of politicians to
have stopped a war from expanding or risk the development of a German
super state in Europe.
Like all of these if flounders on defintion.

Could Hitler have acheived his objectives? Depends what his objectives were not what
juvenile propaganda said they were.

For example, when did WWII start? One parochial definition is in September 1939. If the
war in the Pacific is included why then? Why is the Sino-Japanese war excluded as a
starting point? And if it includes the Pacific war how could it become a world war before
December 1941? If the Pacific War is avoided is WWII avoided? If Britain wishes Poland
good luck and Germany and Russia exhaust each other, is WWII avoided even if there is a
Pacific war? If OTL happens but Germany and Russia avoid war is WWII avoided?

If newspapers decided on a different term like The Greater War is WWII avoided? That is
not a trivial observation as WWI was at most a European/middle east war not a world war
and was not called one. It is only ex post facto false labeling the Great War as WWI that
gives us a WWII. Which may sound abstruse but why is not the Franco-Prussian war called
WWI, the Great War WWII leading you to ask how to avoid WWIII. It is all in the labeling.
Customary usage is the first sign the labeling is wrong.

This WI really has no meaning other than avoiding the label. What specifically is the
defintion of the war and which material component of it would not lead to the label?

If Japan had gotten a peace treaty with China in 1938 there would have been no Pacific
war, no US involvement (by that means) and no WWII. If FDR had not wanted a piece of the
action no confrontation with Japan and no Pacific war.
--
"Are you in favor of war on Iraq?" and "Are you going to enlist to
fight in Iraq?" are two different questions. Polls only ask the
first so the results are always misleading.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 2936
Mark the Marker
2003-12-01 13:34:35 UTC
Permalink
"Are you in favor of war on Iraq?" and "Are you going to enlist to
fight in Iraq?" are two different questions. Polls only ask the
first so the results are always misleading.


"Are you in favor of capital punishment?" and "Would you be willing to
inject the toxins yourself?" are two different questions. Polls only
ask the
first so the results are always misleading.


"Do you support legal abortion?" and "Would you be willing to perform
an abortion yourself?" are two different questions. Polls only ask the
first so the results are always misleading.
Fabian
2003-12-01 13:47:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Matt Giwer
"Are you in favor of war on Iraq?" and "Are you going to enlist to
fight in Iraq?" are two different questions. Polls only ask the
first so the results are always misleading.
"Are you in favor of capital punishment?" and "Would you be willing to
inject the toxins yourself?" are two different questions. Polls only
ask the
first so the results are always misleading.
"Do you support legal abortion?" and "Would you be willing to perform
an abortion yourself?" are two different questions. Polls only ask the
first so the results are always misleading.
I think the last of these i fundamentally different from teh other two.
Nearly everyone is physically, if not psychologically, competant to do
the first two. Very few people are competant to perform an abortion and
leave the ex-mother-to-be in a healthy state.
--
--
Fabian
Visit my website often and for long periods!
http://www.lajzar.co.uk
Matt Giwer
2003-12-02 01:27:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Fabian
Post by Matt Giwer
"Are you in favor of war on Iraq?" and "Are you going to enlist to
fight in Iraq?" are two different questions. Polls only ask the
first so the results are always misleading.
"Are you in favor of capital punishment?" and "Would you be willing to
inject the toxins yourself?" are two different questions. Polls only
ask the
first so the results are always misleading.
"Do you support legal abortion?" and "Would you be willing to perform
an abortion yourself?" are two different questions. Polls only ask the
first so the results are always misleading.
I think the last of these i fundamentally different from teh other two.
Nearly everyone is physically, if not psychologically, competant to do
the first two. Very few people are competant to perform an abortion and
leave the ex-mother-to-be in a healthy state.
"Are you willing to spend a couple days learning how to do the procedure safely and then
do it?"

Med school is so long because there is so much to learn not that any particular thing is
all the hard to learn.
--
If holocaust denial is bad, why is Christ denial good?
-- The Iron Webmaster, 2935
David Johnston
2003-12-02 07:36:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Matt Giwer
Post by Fabian
Post by Matt Giwer
"Are you in favor of war on Iraq?" and "Are you going to enlist to
fight in Iraq?" are two different questions. Polls only ask the
first so the results are always misleading.
"Are you in favor of capital punishment?" and "Would you be willing to
inject the toxins yourself?" are two different questions. Polls only
ask the
first so the results are always misleading.
"Do you support legal abortion?" and "Would you be willing to perform
an abortion yourself?" are two different questions. Polls only ask the
first so the results are always misleading.
I think the last of these i fundamentally different from teh other two.
Nearly everyone is physically, if not psychologically, competant to do
the first two. Very few people are competant to perform an abortion and
leave the ex-mother-to-be in a healthy state.
"Are you willing to spend a couple days learning how to do the procedure safely and then
do it?"
Am I prepared to learn just enough to be dangerous but not enough to
deal with any likely complications competently, and then try to do
basic surgery? Hell no!
Matt Giwer
2003-12-05 22:40:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Johnston
Post by Matt Giwer
Post by Fabian
Post by Matt Giwer
"Are you in favor of war on Iraq?" and "Are you going to enlist to
fight in Iraq?" are two different questions. Polls only ask the
first so the results are always misleading.
"Are you in favor of capital punishment?" and "Would you be willing to
inject the toxins yourself?" are two different questions. Polls only
ask the
first so the results are always misleading.
"Do you support legal abortion?" and "Would you be willing to perform
an abortion yourself?" are two different questions. Polls only ask the
first so the results are always misleading.
I think the last of these i fundamentally different from teh other two.
Nearly everyone is physically, if not psychologically, competant to do
the first two. Very few people are competant to perform an abortion and
leave the ex-mother-to-be in a healthy state.
"Are you willing to spend a couple days learning how to do the procedure safely and then
do it?"
Am I prepared to learn just enough to be dangerous but not enough to
deal with any likely complications competently, and then try to do
basic surgery? Hell no!
Abortion is not surgery. Although it seems a contradition in terms, it is not an invasive
procedure. It is not surgery. And you can do it under supervision in case something goes
wrong. It does not change the "are you willing to do it if you support it" issue.
--
Where Hitler failed at racial purity, Israel succeeded.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 2949
Fabian
2003-12-06 00:47:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Matt Giwer
Post by David Johnston
Am I prepared to learn just enough to be dangerous but not enough to
deal with any likely complications competently, and then try to do
basic surgery? Hell no!
Abortion is not surgery. Although it seems a contradition in terms,
it is not an invasive procedure. It is not surgery. And you can do it
under supervision in case something goes wrong. It does not change
the "are you willing to do it if you support it" issue.
Maybe it doesn't fit a strict definition of surgery. I can guarantee you
that when you get that close and personal with someone, and try removing
something from said person in a way it wasn't meant to be removed (ie
natural childbirth), it is quite easy to cause permanent harm if you
don't know what you are doing.
--
--
Fabian
Visit my website often and for long periods!
http://www.lajzar.co.uk
Matt Giwer
2003-12-06 02:03:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Fabian
Post by Matt Giwer
Post by David Johnston
Am I prepared to learn just enough to be dangerous but not enough to
deal with any likely complications competently, and then try to do
basic surgery? Hell no!
Abortion is not surgery. Although it seems a contradition in terms,
it is not an invasive procedure. It is not surgery. And you can do it
under supervision in case something goes wrong. It does not change
the "are you willing to do it if you support it" issue.
Maybe it doesn't fit a strict definition of surgery. I can guarantee you
that when you get that close and personal with someone, and try removing
something from said person in a way it wasn't meant to be removed (ie
natural childbirth), it is quite easy to cause permanent harm if you
don't know what you are doing.
Manual abortion appears to have been part of the trade of midwives. Records are slim but
in about the same quantity as for any other trade. There are records from Egypt and from
there even a recipe for a chemical abortifacent. Of course there were no medical
statistics kept and repeated failures rarely bother people even today but one does expect
there was word of mouth reports of success rather than death. At one point the ruling
families of Rome were so reluctant to risk child birth there were laws passed requiring
children for them to inherit anything. There is no suggestion they were abstinent.
Abortion was safer.

As for mechanically inducing an abortion, the modern medical procedure is to get it all
finished before the patient leaves. If the woman will put up with a few days of cramps and
bleeding to get a miscarriage, an insult to the womb will do the job.

So you have to do more than just insult the womb for D&C but it is an ancient technique,
not particularly dangerous. Today you have the tools designed exactly for the job based
upon knowing anatomy rather than trial and error.
--
Everyone who has been convicted of a crime related to marijuana
has been convicted of a political crime as it is only illegal
for political reasons.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 2933
Fabian
2003-12-06 02:41:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Matt Giwer
Manual abortion appears to have been part of the trade of midwives.
My sister is a midwife. There is nothing trivial about the skills
involved, or the length of training. It isn't something any idiot can
walk into and do. Not unless you want an unacceptably high level of
side-injuries.
Post by Matt Giwer
Today you have the
tools designed exactly for the job based upon knowing anatomy rather
than trial and error.
Existance of tools is not knowledge of use. I say with all sincerity
that I have no idea how to build a car, yet I have no doubt that the
tools exist to do so.
--
--
Fabian
Visit my website often and for long periods!
http://www.lajzar.co.uk
Matt Giwer
2003-12-06 03:44:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Fabian
Post by Matt Giwer
Manual abortion appears to have been part of the trade of midwives.
My sister is a midwife. There is nothing trivial about the skills
involved, or the length of training. It isn't something any idiot can
walk into and do. Not unless you want an unacceptably high level of
side-injuries.
Note my further comments as to abortion by midwives having been safer than childbirth in
Rome. That would have been in the first century when the inheritance laws were changed for
that problem.

I draw your attention to the fact that it was only in the 1930s in the US that doctors
started making the majority of deliveries instead of midwives. Pardon if I question the
risk of side-injuries. When it was all midwives, the number of children were greater and
therefore midwives had more opportunities for side injuries. The side-injuries are
apparently more technical than serious enough to prevent future births.
Post by Fabian
Post by Matt Giwer
Today you have the
tools designed exactly for the job based upon knowing anatomy rather
than trial and error.
Existance of tools is not knowledge of use. I say with all sincerity
that I have no idea how to build a car, yet I have no doubt that the
tools exist to do so.
I said you would have the training in the use of the tools. I said the procedure could be
taught in a few days and based that upon not needing much knowledge other than that
specific task. If you knock a thumb out of joint and go to the ER you will get a very
professional cast. If you do the same in high school the coach will tape it up to the same
result.
--
If holocaust denial is bad, why is Christ denial good?
-- The Iron Webmaster, 2935
k***@cix.compulink.co.uk
2003-12-06 18:08:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Matt Giwer
So you have to do more than just insult the womb for D&C but
it is an ancient technique, not particularly dangerous.
There were a large number of deaths from abortion in the UK prior to
legalisation. That was one of the main reasons that the initial
legalisation came about.

Ken Young
***@cix.co.uk

Those who cover themselves with martial glory
frequently go in need of any other garment. (Bramah)
Matt Giwer
2003-12-06 19:41:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by k***@cix.compulink.co.uk
Post by Matt Giwer
So you have to do more than just insult the womb for D&C but
it is an ancient technique, not particularly dangerous.
There were a large number of deaths from abortion in the UK prior to
legalisation. That was one of the main reasons that the initial
legalisation came about.
There are _stories_ of such deaths in the US prior to legaliation but upon critical
examination most were found to be nothing more than stories. When someone dies there is an
autopsey to determine cause of death. There is no way to claim the stories are true but
covered up using the traditional methods of both vast and semi-vast conspiracies. Deaths
statistics did not support the stories therefore they were only stories.

It may have been different in the UK.
--
In America immigrants can support any foreign country
they want as long as it is Israel.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 2934
jlk7e
2003-12-02 21:05:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Fabian
Post by Matt Giwer
"Are you in favor of war on Iraq?" and "Are you going to enlist to
fight in Iraq?" are two different questions. Polls only ask the
first so the results are always misleading.
"Are you in favor of capital punishment?" and "Would you be willing to
inject the toxins yourself?" are two different questions. Polls only
ask the
first so the results are always misleading.
"Do you support legal abortion?" and "Would you be willing to perform
an abortion yourself?" are two different questions. Polls only ask the
first so the results are always misleading.
I think the last of these i fundamentally different from teh other two.
Nearly everyone is physically, if not psychologically, competant to do
the first two. Very few people are competant to perform an abortion and
leave the ex-mother-to-be in a healthy state.
Plus, there's also the question of woman *having* abortions. There
are many more of these than people who *perform* abortions.
Deiotaros
2003-12-04 01:43:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Fabian
I think the last of these i fundamentally different from teh other two.
Nearly everyone is physically, if not psychologically, competant to do
the first two. Very few people are competant to perform an abortion and
leave the ex-mother-to-be in a healthy state.
I believe his point was that people are willing to agree to "Uncomfortable"
things, but when it comes to doing it, they back down
Nicholas Smid
2003-12-03 08:58:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Matt Giwer
"Are you in favor of war on Iraq?" and "Are you going to enlist to
fight in Iraq?" are two different questions. Polls only ask the
first so the results are always misleading.
In favor of getting shot of Sadam, not in favor of the babling nonsence used
to try and justify it, as for joining up I'm 45 and overweight, who'd have
me anyway.
Post by Matt Giwer
"Are you in favor of capital punishment?" and "Would you be willing to
inject the toxins yourself?" are two different questions. Polls only
ask the
first so the results are always misleading.
Yes and Yes, though personly I'd prefer a gun for the job.
Post by Matt Giwer
"Do you support legal abortion?" and "Would you be willing to perform
an abortion yourself?" are two different questions. Polls only ask the
first so the results are always misleading.
Genrally No, and No, don't want to spend years learning medical prosedures,
thats why society has specalists so you don't have to be able to do
everything yourself.
Matt Giwer
2003-12-05 22:47:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Nicholas Smid
Post by Matt Giwer
"Are you in favor of war on Iraq?" and "Are you going to enlist to
fight in Iraq?" are two different questions. Polls only ask the
first so the results are always misleading.
In favor of getting shot of Sadam, not in favor of the babling nonsence used
to try and justify it, as for joining up I'm 45 and overweight, who'd have
me anyway.
Certainly you have some skill the military could use to free up the younger men for
fighting. Insurance salesmen can do clerical work. Motorpools need mechanics regardless of
age or physical condition.

"They wouldn't have me" is not an answer to the question.

If you are not willing to sign up being in favor of the war is no different from being in
favor of the Redskins.
--
Ragheads, beanieheads, it's all the same to me.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 2955
Nicholas Smid
2003-12-07 03:45:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Matt Giwer
Post by Nicholas Smid
Post by Matt Giwer
"Are you in favor of war on Iraq?" and "Are you going to enlist to
fight in Iraq?" are two different questions. Polls only ask the
first so the results are always misleading.
In favor of getting shot of Sadam, not in favor of the babling nonsence used
to try and justify it, as for joining up I'm 45 and overweight, who'd have
me anyway.
Certainly you have some skill the military could use to free up the younger men for
fighting. Insurance salesmen can do clerical work. Motorpools need mechanics regardless of
age or physical condition.
"They wouldn't have me" is not an answer to the question.
If you are not willing to sign up being in favor of the war is no different from being in
favor of the Redskins.
Well a few points, one, New Zealand isn't in the war and given the roaring
nonsense Bush the younger floated as justification I have a hard time
finding falt with the desition. Ofcourse the honest answer, he was trying to
finnish off daddies war, and make a few mega bucks for his corperot sponsers
wouldn't have flown too good ether. Going in to remove a dictator who was a
blot on humanity would have been justification enough in my opinion but
would have opened questions of Americas rather salective view on who's
missbehaving.
Ofcourse if they were really out to strike a blow at the roots of terrorisem
they'd have invaded Saudi Arabia, but that would have been biteing the hand
that feed the Bush family.
Second I did try to join up way back when I was about 20, put in for officer
training, turned down on medical grounds, eye sight, NZ has a very small
army and can be very salective. If NZ got into a real war and needed to
expand its army I would have no trouble about joining up and doing a desk
job, or driving vehicals, just don't ask me to hump a 90 lb pack up
mountaines those days are far behind me now.
Post by Matt Giwer
--
Ragheads, beanieheads, it's all the same to me.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 2955
Matt Giwer
2003-12-07 08:05:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Nicholas Smid
Post by Matt Giwer
Post by Nicholas Smid
Post by Matt Giwer
"Are you in favor of war on Iraq?" and "Are you going to enlist to
fight in Iraq?" are two different questions. Polls only ask the
first so the results are always misleading.
In favor of getting shot of Sadam, not in favor of the babling nonsence used
to try and justify it, as for joining up I'm 45 and overweight, who'd have
me anyway.
Certainly you have some skill the military could use to free up the younger men for
fighting. Insurance salesmen can do clerical work. Motorpools need mechanics regardless of
age or physical condition.
"They wouldn't have me" is not an answer to the question.
If you are not willing to sign up being in favor of the war is no different from being in
favor of the Redskins.
Well a few points, one, New Zealand isn't in the war and given the roaring
nonsense Bush the younger floated as justification I have a hard time
finding falt with the desition. Ofcourse the honest answer, he was trying to
finnish off daddies war, and make a few mega bucks for his corperot sponsers
wouldn't have flown too good ether. Going in to remove a dictator who was a
blot on humanity would have been justification enough in my opinion but
would have opened questions of Americas rather salective view on who's
missbehaving.
There is no question US political patronage extends beyond the borders of the US. It
always has. Banana Republics met with gunboat diplomacy is a tradition in the Americas.
Post by Nicholas Smid
Ofcourse if they were really out to strike a blow at the roots of terrorisem
they'd have invaded Saudi Arabia, but that would have been biteing the hand
that feed the Bush family.
If there were an interest in terrorism it would be dealt with by international law the
way pirates were dealt with. Terrorism would be defined to international satisfaction,
declared enemies of everyone and every state could arrest and execute. That is how pirates
were eliminated in the west. But at Nuremberg resistance fighters were sanctified where
resistance was not permitted before WWII by Hague treaty on land warfare. Thus today we
have resistance fighters called terrorists by the US and friends of the US and resistance
fighters by those against the US and friends.

The issue is not Saudi. The issue is who sanctifies which resistance or liberation
movement and who can declare them terrorists. It now lies with politics just a privateers
or pirates once was political.
Post by Nicholas Smid
Second I did try to join up way back when I was about 20, put in for officer
training, turned down on medical grounds, eye sight, NZ has a very small
army and can be very salective.
Join the club, almost. I had a family friend as a congressrat, Donald Clancy, and he was
willing to give me a glowing to the Air Force Academy. But the medical got me. Then I was
called up for the grunt draft and still failed on eyesight. We differ in that was in the
height of the Vietnam War. They were not being selective.
Post by Nicholas Smid
If NZ got into a real war and needed to
expand its army I would have no trouble about joining up and doing a desk
job, or driving vehicals, just don't ask me to hump a 90 lb pack up
mountaines those days are far behind me now.
All I am saying is a desk job. The military has a minimum physical and "perfect" physical
specimens do wind up behind desks filing memos, as mechanics, and never leaving the
country doing logistics. There are plenty of jobs for middle aged, fat and near-sighted
persons to free those perfect specimens to fight.

People who cannot honestly say they would leave their wive and kids, sell out to a
smaller home or apartment to survive on the much lower pay, and put up with barracks life
then they really do not support a war. In war killing people and being killed is much more
important than that where the family lives.

If the country is really threatened then it is take that hit or lose everything by losing
the war. So there is really no serious question on the sacrifice if there is a real
threat. For voluntary wars it is a different question.
--
If Jenin was done in the name of the Jewish People
should not the entire world be antisemitic?
-- The Iron Webmaster, 2954
David Johnston
2003-12-02 07:34:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Matt Giwer
Post by Bernardz
At the end of WW1, almost every German was resentful over the result
particularly the loss of land both in Alsace-Lorraine and Poland. Even
if Hitler had never come to power, a revitalized Germany would have
demanded territory changes in the region nearby.
As in the OTL sooner or later Germany would have demanded that Poland
give something. Poland would have refused. If war breaks out between
Poland and Germany, it would have taken some wise acts of politicians to
have stopped a war from expanding or risk the development of a German
super state in Europe.
Like all of these if flounders on defintion.
Could Hitler have acheived his objectives? Depends what his objectives were not what
juvenile propaganda said they were.
For example, when did WWII start? One parochial definition is in September 1939. If the
war in the Pacific is included why then? Why is the Sino-Japanese war excluded as a
starting point?
Because at that point the world at large was not involved.

And if it includes the Pacific war how could it become a world war
before
Post by Matt Giwer
December 1941?
By involving the British and French Empires which had presences in
every inhabited continent.
Matt Giwer
2003-12-05 22:51:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Johnston
Post by Matt Giwer
Post by Bernardz
At the end of WW1, almost every German was resentful over the result
particularly the loss of land both in Alsace-Lorraine and Poland. Even
if Hitler had never come to power, a revitalized Germany would have
demanded territory changes in the region nearby.
As in the OTL sooner or later Germany would have demanded that Poland
give something. Poland would have refused. If war breaks out between
Poland and Germany, it would have taken some wise acts of politicians to
have stopped a war from expanding or risk the development of a German
super state in Europe.
Like all of these if flounders on defintion.
Could Hitler have acheived his objectives? Depends what his objectives were not what
juvenile propaganda said they were.
For example, when did WWII start? One parochial definition is in September 1939. If the
war in the Pacific is included why then? Why is the Sino-Japanese war excluded as a
starting point?
Because at that point the world at large was not involved.
And if it includes the Pacific war how could it become a world war
before
Post by Matt Giwer
December 1941?
By involving the British and French Empires which had presences in
every inhabited continent.
So to avoid WWII it is only necessary to avoid the war in the Pacific because it did not
involve everyone. So all we need is FDR not to embargo oil and scrap to Japan or the USSC
declaring his action unconstitutional. The Pacific war doesn't happen and WWII doesn't
happen.
--
Some Kennedy assassination information is still classified
as a matter of national security. If Oswald was a lone
assassin there is no matter of national security. Therefore
Oswald was not the only assassin.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 2927
David Johnston
2003-12-06 21:04:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Matt Giwer
Post by David Johnston
Post by Matt Giwer
For example, when did WWII start? One parochial definition is in September 1939. If the
war in the Pacific is included why then? Why is the Sino-Japanese war excluded as a
starting point?
Because at that point the world at large was not involved.
And if it includes the Pacific war how could it become a world war
before
Post by Matt Giwer
December 1941?
By involving the British and French Empires which had presences in
every inhabited continent.
So to avoid WWII it is only necessary to avoid the war in the Pacific because it did not
involve everyone.
You flunk reading comprehension. What I said was just the opposite.
Matt Giwer
2003-12-07 02:06:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Johnston
Post by Matt Giwer
Post by David Johnston
Post by Matt Giwer
For example, when did WWII start? One parochial definition is in September 1939. If the
war in the Pacific is included why then? Why is the Sino-Japanese war excluded as a
starting point?
Because at that point the world at large was not involved.
And if it includes the Pacific war how could it become a world war
before December 1941?
By involving the British and French Empires which had presences in
every inhabited continent.
So to avoid WWII it is only necessary to avoid the war in the Pacific because it did not
involve everyone.
You flunk reading comprehension. What I said was just the opposite.
A good writer does not blame the reader. Could you clarify what you were trying to say?
--
I detest politics not for what it is but for what
it pretends it is not.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 2943
David Johnston
2003-12-07 06:18:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Matt Giwer
Post by David Johnston
Post by Matt Giwer
Post by David Johnston
Post by Matt Giwer
For example, when did WWII start? One parochial definition is in September 1939. If the
war in the Pacific is included why then? Why is the Sino-Japanese war excluded as a
starting point?
Because at that point the world at large was not involved.
And if it includes the Pacific war how could it become a world war
before December 1941?
By involving the British and French Empires which had presences in
every inhabited continent.
So to avoid WWII it is only necessary to avoid the war in the Pacific because it did not
involve everyone.
You flunk reading comprehension. What I said was just the opposite.
A good writer does not blame the reader. Could you clarify what you were trying to say?
World War II started in 1939 because the British and French empires
were so large that any fight involving them was automatically a World
War.
Matt Giwer
2003-12-07 08:18:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Johnston
Post by Matt Giwer
Post by David Johnston
Post by Matt Giwer
Post by David Johnston
Post by Matt Giwer
For example, when did WWII start? One parochial definition is in September 1939. If the
war in the Pacific is included why then? Why is the Sino-Japanese war excluded as a
starting point?
Because at that point the world at large was not involved.
And if it includes the Pacific war how could it become a world war
before December 1941?
By involving the British and French Empires which had presences in
every inhabited continent.
So to avoid WWII it is only necessary to avoid the war in the Pacific because it did not
involve everyone.
You flunk reading comprehension. What I said was just the opposite.
A good writer does not blame the reader. Could you clarify what you were trying to say?
World War II started in 1939 because the British and French empires
were so large that any fight involving them was automatically a World
War.
Therefore the pre-ghandi Indian war for independence from Britain was a world war.

Therefore the French war against the independence movement in Indo-China was a world war.

Therefore the Crimean war was a world war. The Kashmir war was a world war. The Boer war
was a world war.

If you want the involvement of a world wide empire to be a world war then there are many
unsung and unnamed world wars that the real world viewed as only local skirmishes.

I do not see that as a reasonable definition.

I do not see it as reasonable that both Brit and French be involved as their empires
overlapped to include all continents but Australia.
--
If all the men but I were gay,
The name would be Sampson not Simpson.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 2961
soft-eng
2003-12-01 14:16:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bernardz
At the end of WW1, almost every German was resentful over the result
particularly the loss of land both in Alsace-Lorraine and Poland. Even
if Hitler had never come to power, a revitalized Germany would have
demanded territory changes in the region nearby.
As in the OTL sooner or later Germany would have demanded that Poland
give something. Poland would have refused. If war breaks out between
Poland and Germany, it would have taken some wise acts of politicians to
have stopped a war from expanding or risk the development of a German
super state in Europe.
Potentially trade could have been used to diffuse the tensions.
If the destructive power of then-Germany had been apparent
to the leaders in the UK, they could have offered
trade treaties with the intent to involve the Germans
more in money-making. Mass purchase by UK and
France of German manufactured goods, etc, on
super-reasonable terms. Cross-fertilization of literature,
much movement of people across borders for trade reasons (incidentally
resulting in unnoticed deflation of uber-theories), etc.
Charles W. Finley
2003-11-30 20:03:26 UTC
Permalink
how late? there is still the Japan and USSR factor to consider. No war by
12-1941, how would England, France (in this TL is not Occupied), Germany
(still building up), Poland, and the USSR react when Japan attack Pearl
Harbor? and what side would they take

IMO, regaurdless of what happens, Pearl Harbor still happen in this TL as
well.
Post by Bernardz
At the end of WW1, almost every German was resentful over the result
particularly the loss of land both in Alsace-Lorraine and Poland. Even
if Hitler had never come to power, a revitalized Germany would have
demanded territory changes in the region nearby.
As in the OTL sooner or later Germany would have demanded that Poland
give something. Poland would have refused. If war breaks out between
Poland and Germany, it would have taken some wise acts of politicians to
have stopped a war from expanding or risk the development of a German
super state in Europe.
Oliver Neukum
2003-12-01 23:16:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Charles W. Finley
how late? there is still the Japan and USSR factor to consider. No war by
12-1941, how would England, France (in this TL is not Occupied), Germany
(still building up), Poland, and the USSR react when Japan attack Pearl
Harbor? and what side would they take
Not at all. Not even the Japanese government is stupid enough to
fight Britain, the US and France at once.

Regards
Oliver
David Johnston
2003-12-02 07:24:58 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 30 Nov 2003 15:03:26 -0500, "Charles W. Finley"
Post by Charles W. Finley
how late? there is still the Japan and USSR factor to consider. No war by
12-1941, how would England, France (in this TL is not Occupied), Germany
(still building up), Poland, and the USSR react when Japan attack Pearl
Harbor? and what side would they take
I'd suggest that they'd ignore it as none of their business.
JoatSimeon
2003-12-02 11:33:13 UTC
Permalink
The things about Hitler that made WWII possible were not that he was an extreme
nationalist and revanchist.

The crucial factors were that he was (a) willing to take very radical gambles,
and (b) had aquired sufficient dominance over the other elements in Germany
(particularly the military) that he could make them go along with it.

The German army was happy to rearm, happy to break the "Versailles shackles"
and happy to snip up territory like Austria.

What they were _not_ happy about was anything that could produce another
general war.

Because they were convinced, for obvious reasons, that Germany would probably
lose again.

On any objective calculation, the successes which Hitler managed to pile up in
1939-41 were highly improbable, a madman's gamble.

To get WWII, you have to get a dictator who is both extremely irresponsible and
takes terrible risks, and one who can dominate the military.

No elected leader could have done it. No conventional military junta could
have done it. Hell, it's doubtful any other _Nazi_ leader could have done it.

Simply knocking off Hitler any time before September of 1939 would probably
prevent anything like our WWII.
mike stone
2003-12-02 13:05:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by JoatSimeon
The things about Hitler that made WWII possible were not that he was an extreme
nationalist and revanchist.
The crucial factors were that he was (a) willing to take very radical gambles,
and (b) had aquired sufficient dominance over the other elements in Germany
(particularly the military) that he could make them go along with it.
The German army was happy to rearm, happy to break the "Versailles shackles"
and happy to snip up territory like Austria.
What they were _not_ happy about was anything that could produce another
general war.
Because they were convinced, for obvious reasons, that Germany would probably
lose again.
On any objective calculation, the successes which Hitler managed to pile up in
1939-41 were highly improbable, a madman's gamble.
To get WWII, you have to get a dictator who is both extremely irresponsible and
takes terrible risks, and one who can dominate the military.
No elected leader could have done it. No conventional military junta could
have done it. Hell, it's doubtful any other _Nazi_ leader could have done it.
Simply knocking off Hitler any time before September of 1939 would probably
prevent anything like our WWII.
Precisely. As istr one historian putting it

"The First World War happened because the German Army leaders had too much
political power; the Second because they had too little"
--
Mike Stone - Peterborough England

Call nothing true until it has been officially denied
phil hunt
2003-12-02 18:50:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by JoatSimeon
Simply knocking off Hitler any time before September of 1939 would probably
prevent anything like our WWII.
We wouldn't get our WW2, but would we get a war?

In Europe, probably not, or at least, not immediately, since no-one
would be rash enough to start a war. Though it could happen if
Stalin decides to invade Finland, the Baltic States, and/or Romania,
as he did in OTL. If this happens, it's entirely likely that a
coalition would oppose him. But Stalin was probably too cautious to
do this.

If there is no war in Europe, what will Japan do? Attacking the USA,
and the colonies of Britain, France and the Netherlands, while those
countries are all at peace and therefore able to give their full
energies against Japan, appears a non-starter.
--
"It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia
(Email: <***@zen.co.ku>, but first subtract 275 and reverse
the last two letters).
Doug Hoff
2003-12-02 22:47:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by phil hunt
If there is no war in Europe, what will Japan do? Attacking the USA,
and the colonies of Britain, France and the Netherlands, while those
countries are all at peace and therefore able to give their full
energies against Japan, appears a non-starter.
Well, when Japan attacked the US it was (technically) at peace with Germany.
I wouldnt put much past the militarists running the show in Tokyo.
--
-------------------

Doug Hoff

***@dhoff5767.eiomail.com

(Insert a three instead of a two and you have my new SHWI e-mail address)


www.althist.com
Mike Ralls
2003-12-02 22:57:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Doug Hoff
Well, when Japan attacked the US it was (technically) at peace with Germany.
I wouldnt put much past the militarists running the show in Tokyo.
In the absence of a war in Europe Japan is unlikely to take on any
European collonies. The take over of Indochina was what was the last
straw for the US and set off the oil embargo

Without war in Europe, Japan is also likely to not be under any sort of
embargo period, and can buy as much oil and goods and she can afford.
This makes war highly unlikely. Japan and China will continue to slug
it out until it gets to be too much for both of them.

My best guess is that some sort of negotiated peace (there were feelers
in OTL, and it could have happened) is eventually arranged between
Chiang and Japan sometime between 1942 and 1948.
--
Mike Ralls
My webpage: http://www.geocities.com/misterralls
My real e-mail: mikerralls [at] netscape.net
"The standard isn't perfection. The standard is the alternative."
Doug Hoff
2003-12-02 23:31:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mike Ralls
Post by Doug Hoff
Well, when Japan attacked the US it was (technically) at peace with Germany.
I wouldnt put much past the militarists running the show in Tokyo.
In the absence of a war in Europe Japan is unlikely to take on any
European collonies. The take over of Indochina was what was the last
straw for the US and set off the oil embargo
Without war in Europe, Japan is also likely to not be under any sort of
embargo period, and can buy as much oil and goods and she can afford.
This makes war highly unlikely. Japan and China will continue to slug
it out until it gets to be too much for both of them.
Hmm. Good point.
--
-------------------

Doug Hoff

***@dhoff5767.eiomail.com

(Insert a three instead of a two and you have my new SHWI e-mail address)


www.althist.com
k***@cix.compulink.co.uk
2003-12-04 13:11:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mike Ralls
Without war in Europe, Japan is also likely to not be under any
sort of embargo period,
I believe it was the Japanese take over of the Vichy colonies that
decided the US on an embargo. Also I can not see the Dutch cutting off
oil to Japan. So I agree.

However I do think that if Japan is concentrating on China and
Mongolia more incidents with the USSR are likely.

Ken Young
***@cix.co.uk

Those who cover themselves with martial glory
frequently go in need of any other garment. (Bramah)
mike
2003-12-04 21:40:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mike Ralls
In the absence of a war in Europe Japan is unlikely to take on any
European collonies. The take over of Indochina was what was the last
straw for the US and set off the oil embargo
Without war in Europe, Japan is also likely to not be under any sort of
embargo period, and can buy as much oil and goods and she can afford.
This makes war highly unlikely. Japan and China will continue to slug
it out until it gets to be too much for both of them.
'She can afford' is key. Even with no embargo, the Oil market then,
as now, Priced in Dollars. Even buying from the Dutch, there would
need for Yen to be exchanged for Dollars, not a direct Yen to
Guilder transaction.

And the Yen wasn't trading all that hot on the Currency markets
in 1940.

More and more Rice Raids in China won't do the Japanese much good
in a PR sense, plus I'd bet there would be more Panay/Reuben James
type cluelessness on the Japanese side.

Expect the US to cut them off 1942 or '43

Going thru 1942 with no war in the Pacific, the Window Japan had
starts to close, as the USN FY1938 and FY'40 building programs
complete, with the SoDaks, Iowas,CVs,M4s, F4Us, and B-29s come online.

And even Dugout Doug couldn't completly screw up things in the PI
as new Radars, Tanks,Fighters,Bombers flow in.

Past 1942, Japan couldn't do a Pearl Harbor as easy as in the year before
Post by Mike Ralls
My best guess is that some sort of negotiated peace (there were feelers
in OTL, and it could have happened) is eventually arranged between
Chiang and Japan sometime between 1942 and 1948.
Right after Japan runs out of money. 1944 with no war on?

**
mike
**
Oliver Neukum
2003-12-04 22:14:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by mike
Going thru 1942 with no war in the Pacific, the Window Japan had
starts to close, as the USN FY1938 and FY'40 building programs
complete, with the SoDaks, Iowas,CVs,M4s, F4Us, and B-29s come online.
Without war in Europe, why does Congress spend so much?
Post by mike
And even Dugout Doug couldn't completly screw up things in the PI
as new Radars, Tanks,Fighters,Bombers flow in.
Past 1942, Japan couldn't do a Pearl Harbor as easy as in the year before
Post by Mike Ralls
My best guess is that some sort of negotiated peace (there were feelers
in OTL, and it could have happened) is eventually arranged between
Chiang and Japan sometime between 1942 and 1948.
Right after Japan runs out of money. 1944 with no war on?
Allowing Japan to keep Manchuria until round 2?

Regards
Oliver
mike
2003-12-05 13:26:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Oliver Neukum
Without war in Europe, why does Congress spend so much?
All of the USN expansion came from mistrust of Japan. Nazi Germany
wasn't the threat that drove that engine: Japan pulling from the various
Naval arms control treaties did.

While the B-29 was influenced by the War starting, the earlier
B-15, a 1934 design requested by the USAAC for a long-range bomber,
with a 5000 mile range & a 2000-pound bombload, was not.

Also see the Douglas B-19 and Martin Mars for very long range bomber
designs. These wouldn't be needed for Europe, as the very thought
that France or UK could fall was, well, Inconceivable! </Sicilian>

Trans-Atlantic bomber? Bah. Only the Pacific needed such ranges.

B-17 as an anti-shipping weapon[1], which led to a dust up between the
USN and USAAC in 1937 over defence of CONUS.

Preparing to fight Hitler wasn't even on the Radar screen till after
Munich. Before that, it was all Japan.
Post by Oliver Neukum
Allowing Japan to keep Manchuria until round 2?
I don't think the US cared one whit who pulled the strings
in 'Manchukuo', as there were not the commerce concerns
there as in China proper.

It was the Soviets that Japan had to worry over there.

[1] yeah, level bombers are a waste of effort for that, but that
hadn't been really tested at that time. The Martin B-26 had Torpedo
shackles, a 1939 design.

**
mike
**
Keith F. Lynch
2003-12-03 04:24:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by JoatSimeon
No elected leader could have done it.
Hitler *was* an elected leader.
--
Keith F. Lynch - ***@keithlynch.net - http://keithlynch.net/
I always welcome replies to my e-mail, postings, and web pages, but
unsolicited bulk e-mail (spam) is not acceptable. Please do not send me
HTML, "rich text," or attachments, as all such email is discarded unread.
Leif Magnar Kj|nn|y
2003-12-03 12:58:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Keith F. Lynch
Post by JoatSimeon
No elected leader could have done it.
Hitler *was* an elected leader.
Was not, strictly speaking, not in OTL anyway. Though his boys managed
to pervert the democratic process quite astonishingly far, he still lost
the Presidential election in 1931 and never managed to win a majority in
the Reichstag either. He was *appointed* Chancellor by old Hindenburg,
and only managed to acquire dictatorial powers after failing to win yet
another incredibly rigged Reichstag election (even despite getting the
commies and social democrats either arrested or chased away) and
horsetrading with the Catholic party and the Nationalists.
--
Leif Kjønnøy, Geek of a Few Trades. http://www.pvv.org/~leifmk
Disclaimer: Do not try this at home.
Void where prohibited by law.
Batteries not included.
Charles W. Finley
2003-12-01 19:07:03 UTC
Permalink
No. I am one of these people who say "if Not Hitler, then either
Stalin or Tojo." say in 1929, Hilter dies in a plane crash. the
Repulic stays til an attemped Communist coup in 1936. after 1936,
Germany in a Military Junta. What More, there could be a possibility
that if history contunies without Hitler, then when the USSR invades
Finland in 12-1939, that could be the flashpoint for WW2. or when
Japan launches its suprise Attack on Perl Harbor in 12-1941 be the
flashpoint for WW2.
Post by Bernardz
At the end of WW1, almost every German was resentful over the result
particularly the loss of land both in Alsace-Lorraine and Poland. Even
if Hitler had never come to power, a revitalized Germany would have
demanded territory changes in the region nearby.
As in the OTL sooner or later Germany would have demanded that Poland
give something. Poland would have refused. If war breaks out between
Poland and Germany, it would have taken some wise acts of politicians to
have stopped a war from expanding or risk the development of a German
super state in Europe.
Athos
2003-12-02 02:10:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Charles W. Finley
No. I am one of these people who say "if Not Hitler, then either
Stalin or Tojo." say in 1929, Hilter dies in a plane crash. the
Repulic stays til an attemped Communist coup in 1936. after 1936,
Germany in a Military Junta. What More, there could be a possibility
that if history contunies without Hitler, then when the USSR invades
Finland in 12-1939, that could be the flashpoint for WW2. or when
Japan launches its suprise Attack on Perl Harbor in 12-1941 be the
flashpoint for WW2.
There problems with this theory.

1) The USSR isn't going to invade anyone until Germany, Britain, and
France are at war with each other in some combination. Stalin was
very cautious about the fights he picked and with whom he picked them.
Without the Western Powers (I include Germany here) at each others
throats Stalin never would have attacked Finland or messed with the
Baltic States.

2) The militarists in Japan may have been nuts but even they would
not have started a war in Pacific with Britain, the US, France, and
the Neatherlands. They only conviced themselves that they could get
away with it because France and Holland were occupied, Britain was
supposedly on the ropes and Japan would only have to fight the US, a
nation of softies with no military tradition.

If Germany were under some military junta instead of Uncle Adolf Inc.
they would probably help against the Japanese in an effort to increase
their influence in the area. With the Nazi's in charge they were
helping the Nationalist Chinese with advisors and material.
JoatSimeon
2003-12-02 02:20:15 UTC
Permalink
and Japan would only have to fight the US, a nation of softies with no
military tradition.

-- they also counted on tension with Germany preventing the US from shifting
all its resources against them. (Which did happen, but didn't help them the
way they thought it would.)

Your overall point is very strong, though. Without an actively revanchist
regime in Germany ready to provoke another pan-European war, the other theatres
of WWII look unlikely.
David Johnson
2003-12-02 05:00:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Athos
and Japan would only have to fight the US, a nation of softies with no
military tradition.
-- they also counted on tension with Germany preventing the US from
shifting all its resources against them. (Which did happen, but
didn't help them the way they thought it would.)
Your overall point is very strong, though. Without an actively
revanchist regime in Germany ready to provoke another pan-European
war, the other theatres of WWII look unlikely.
OTOH, if Japan isn't busy heading south, wouldn't it be likely the army
would be able to get its way and attack the Soviets again?

David
--
_______________________________________________________________________
David Johnson home.earthlink.net/~trolleyfan

"You're a loony, you are!"
"They said that about Galileo, they said that about Einstein..."
"Yeah, and they said it about a good few loonies, too!"
Dave J
2003-12-02 05:07:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Johnson
Post by Athos
and Japan would only have to fight the US, a nation of softies with no
military tradition.
-- they also counted on tension with Germany preventing the US from
shifting all its resources against them. (Which did happen, but
didn't help them the way they thought it would.)
Your overall point is very strong, though. Without an actively
revanchist regime in Germany ready to provoke another pan-European
war, the other theatres of WWII look unlikely.
OTOH, if Japan isn't busy heading south, wouldn't it be likely the army
would be able to get its way and attack the Soviets again?
David
Type 92's or even Chi-Ha's vs. T-34s and KV-1s, no matter how many times you
try, Japanese will always lose. It would help if they brought artillery
better than 75mm with them as well.
David Johnson
2003-12-02 05:18:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dave J
Post by David Johnson
Post by Athos
and Japan would only have to fight the US, a nation of softies with no
military tradition.
-- they also counted on tension with Germany preventing the US from
shifting all its resources against them. (Which did happen, but
didn't help them the way they thought it would.)
Your overall point is very strong, though. Without an actively
revanchist regime in Germany ready to provoke another pan-European
war, the other theatres of WWII look unlikely.
OTOH, if Japan isn't busy heading south, wouldn't it be likely the
army would be able to get its way and attack the Soviets again?
David
Type 92's or even Chi-Ha's vs. T-34s and KV-1s, no matter how many
times you try, Japanese will always lose. It would help if they
brought artillery better than 75mm with them as well.
Oh, I didn't think they'd _win_ - while discussing with a friend the
other night WWII-era Japan, we came to the conclusion that it would be
hard to create a _worse_ military culture to fight a war more than six
months long with than the one the Japanese came up with - but this
situation gets major powers mucking about in China (who's already going
"what do you mean there's no WWII - we've been fighting it for the last
decade!) and possibly sets up events that might drag more powers into
the mess.

Whether this would be a "World" War or not, any set of battles that
could cover half of Asia is going to be a pretty big war...

David
--
_______________________________________________________________________
David Johnson home.earthlink.net/~trolleyfan

"You're a loony, you are!"
"They said that about Galileo, they said that about Einstein..."
"Yeah, and they said it about a good few loonies, too!"
jlk7e
2003-12-02 21:03:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Charles W. Finley
No. I am one of these people who say "if Not Hitler, then either
Stalin or Tojo."
Tojo couldn't have started a world war if he wanted to. And if the
U.S., Britain, and France are not otherwise occupied, I don't see as
any Japanese leader would risk a war with all three (not to mention
the Netherlands). There'd certainly be a war with China, though.

say in 1929, Hilter dies in a plane crash. the
Post by Charles W. Finley
Repulic stays til an attemped Communist coup in 1936. after 1936,
Germany in a Military Junta.
Highly unlikely. The right would have taken over long before 1936.
By 1936, Weimar is out of the woods.

What More, there could be a possibility
Post by Charles W. Finley
that if history contunies without Hitler, then when the USSR invades
Finland in 12-1939,
Why on earth would Stalin invade Finland if there's no war going on
between the western powers? If there's one thing that can be said
about Stalin's foreign policy, it was that it was always very
cautious.

that could be the flashpoint for WW2. or when
Post by Charles W. Finley
Japan launches its suprise Attack on Perl Harbor in 12-1941 be the
flashpoint for WW2.
You're assuming that these events occurred completely independently of
German actions. They certainly did not. Japanese actions, for
instance, had much to do with their occupation of Indochina, which was
a direct result of the German occupation of France.
Insane Ranter
2003-12-03 03:40:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by jlk7e
Post by Charles W. Finley
No. I am one of these people who say "if Not Hitler, then either
Stalin or Tojo."
Tojo couldn't have started a world war if he wanted to. And if the
U.S., Britain, and France are not otherwise occupied, I don't see as
any Japanese leader would risk a war with all three (not to mention
the Netherlands). There'd certainly be a war with China, though.
say in 1929, Hilter dies in a plane crash. the
Post by Charles W. Finley
Repulic stays til an attemped Communist coup in 1936. after 1936,
Germany in a Military Junta.
Highly unlikely. The right would have taken over long before 1936.
By 1936, Weimar is out of the woods.
What More, there could be a possibility
Post by Charles W. Finley
that if history contunies without Hitler, then when the USSR invades
Finland in 12-1939,
Why on earth would Stalin invade Finland if there's no war going on
between the western powers? If there's one thing that can be said
about Stalin's foreign policy, it was that it was always very
cautious.
Stalin would have been very happy letting the West and Germany ruin each
other first..then after they are weakened by war...maybe then start up
one...Stalin was paranoid hence his wanting to grab land to make a buffer
between him and Germany....
Rich Rostrom
2003-12-01 23:20:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bernardz
At the end of WW1, almost every German was resentful over the result
particularly the loss of land both in Alsace-Lorraine and Poland. Even
if Hitler had never come to power, a revitalized Germany would have
demanded territory changes in the region nearby.
As in the OTL sooner or later Germany would have demanded that Poland
give something. Poland would have refused. If war breaks out between
Poland and Germany, it would have taken some wise acts of politicians to
have stopped a war from expanding or risk the development of a German
super state in Europe.
Hitler and the Nazis were not inevitable; without Hitler's boldness
and recklessness, Germany would not rearm as extensively nor
threaten its neighbors as vigorously.

It is unlikely that the border disputes of OTL 1936-1939 would have
led to war, mcuh less general war.

Germany would eventually have got some of the Versailles impositions
rescinded - the Saar, Klaipeda/Memel, and probably Danzig.

The dismemberment of Czechoslovakia would be much less likely, as
the border there was much older and more traditional.

Germany would make its demands, but the other powers would object.

While it's true they would be less alarmed by non-Hitler Germany's
ambitions, they would also be less intimidated by non-Hitler
Germany's smaller armed forces.


However - Germany alone did not create "World War II".

Japan had something to do with it. So did Italy. And the USSR was
definitely a danger to world peace. It's not clear if or when the
USSR would have used its military muscle to expand its control,
but such adventures could have happened, and might have ended in
a general war.

This to me is the likeliest origin of a non-Hitler WW II: Japan's
ambitions were largely confined to the Far East, and and she
would not start any fights with the other Great Powers if those
were not "otherwise engaged".

Mussolini was a mere jackal; without Hitler to trouble the waters,
there's little he can get away with.
--
Never consume legumes before transacting whatsoever | Rich Rostrom
even in the outermost courtyard of a descendant of |
Timur the Terrible. | ***@dummy
--- Avram Davidson, _Dr. Bhumbo Singh_ | 21stcentury.net
Bernardz
2003-12-02 09:05:34 UTC
Permalink
In article <rrostrom.21stcentury-481765.17203001122003
@reader3.news.rcn.net>, ***@rcn.com says...
Post by Rich Rostrom
The dismemberment of Czechoslovakia would be much less likely, as
the border there was much older and more traditional.
The mind just boggles.
--
Intelligence does not imply reason or purpose

17th saying of Bernard
mike stone
2003-12-02 09:17:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rich Rostrom
While it's true they would be less alarmed by non-Hitler Germany's
ambitions, they would also be less intimidated by non-Hitler
Germany's smaller armed forces.
How much smaller would they be? The most likely alternative to Hitler is some
kind of military rergime, which will also rearm

In any case, how much military intimidation was really involved? GB and France
went to war in 1939 when the propspects of military success were if anything
worse than formerly - because they know believed war was necessary where
previously they didn't. They did not fight earleir because

a) The memories of WW1 meant that they did not _want_ to fight if there was the
faintest hope of another way out

b) They believed that Hitler's demands (pre-March 1939) were on the whole
justified ones.

A German gov't which carried a big stick (even one not quite as big as
Hitler's) but spoke more softly than he had done, might well have made all his
gains (and maybe more) without a war
--
Mike Stone - Peterborough England

Call nothing true until it has been officially denied
Rich Rostrom
2003-12-02 23:38:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by mike stone
Post by Rich Rostrom
While it's true they would be less alarmed by non-Hitler Germany's
ambitions, they would also be less intimidated by non-Hitler
Germany's smaller armed forces.
How much smaller would they be?
Given German budgetary limitations under any less radical regime
than the Nazis, a lot smaller. 500,000 men in service, plus
reserves; no submarines or capital ships; no multi-engine aircraft.
Enough to keep the army happy, enough to deter any of the military
threats to Germany foreseen at the time - not enough to threaten
Britain or France. (Especially with no bombers - most 1930s
thinkers thought the next war would see every major city leveled
by bombing in a few weeks. British civil defense planners expected
more civilian casualties in the first week than actually happened
in the entire war.)

Also not enough for an attack on Poland or Czechoslovakia as a
'sure thing'. Even with Hitler's rearmament program, the German
army was very dubious about attacking Czechoslovakia in 1938.
Post by mike stone
The most likely alternative to Hitler is some
kind of military regime, which will also rearm
But a lot less.
Post by mike stone
In any case, how much military intimidation was really involved? GB and France
went to war in 1939 when the prospects of military success were if anything
worse than formerly - because they know believed war was necessary where
previously they didn't. They did not fight earlier because
a) The memories of WW1 meant that they did not _want_ to fight if there was the
faintest hope of another way out
And Hitler had them scared. He was a successfully bully.
Post by mike stone
b) They believed that Hitler's demands (pre-March 1939) were on the whole
justified ones.
I would expect the western powers to lean on Poland to give up Danzig.

They want to avoid war, especially if they would be involved, but even
if they would not be. If Germany demanded more than Poland could
reasonably give, they would support Poland to deter Germany from
starting a war.

There were a lot of things they could do to hold Germany back, short of
outright intervention. For instance, they could cut off Germany's imports
of oil, food, and iron ore.

As for Czechoslovakia - if Germany had not annexed Austria, the attack
would be even more risky than OTL. And it's likely that Italy would
continue to block the anschluss.
--
Never consume legumes before transacting whatsoever | Rich Rostrom
even in the outermost courtyard of a descendant of |
Timur the Terrible. | ***@dummy
--- Avram Davidson, _Dr. Bhumbo Singh_ | 21stcentury.net
mike stone
2003-12-03 08:52:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rich Rostrom
I would expect the western powers to lean on Poland to give up Danzig.
Which the Poles would refuse. They didn't have the Czechs reservations about
fighting alone
Post by Rich Rostrom
They want to avoid war, especially if they would be involved, but even
if they would not be. If Germany demanded more than Poland could
reasonably give, they would support Poland to deter Germany from
starting a war.
Why? If they have proposed a deal and Poland has refused it, then Poland is on
her own.
Post by Rich Rostrom
As for Czechoslovakia - if Germany had not annexed Austria, the attack
would be even more risky than OTL. And it's likely that Italy would
continue to block the anschluss
Could it in the long run? Even allowing that Germany hasn't rearmed as much as
OTL, she can _certainly_ rearm enough to handle the Italians

There is also the question of what Italy's relations with GB and France are
like. With a less scary Germany in 1935, they may well have taken a tougher
line over Abyssinia - in which case Mussolini (or his successor) will be
totally estranged from them, and will see Germany as his only friend in the
world,so will hardly be able to alienate her for the sake of the Austrians
So you don't get a Stresa Front in this world
--
Mike Stone - Peterborough England

Call nothing true until it has been officially denied
Oliver Neukum
2003-12-03 12:41:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by mike stone
Post by Rich Rostrom
As for Czechoslovakia - if Germany had not annexed Austria, the attack
would be even more risky than OTL. And it's likely that Italy would
continue to block the anschluss
Could it in the long run? Even allowing that Germany hasn't rearmed as
much as OTL, she can _certainly_ rearm enough to handle the Italians
There is also the question of what Italy's relations with GB and France
are like. With a less scary Germany in 1935, they may well have taken a
tougher line over Abyssinia - in which case Mussolini (or his successor)
will be totally estranged from them, and will see Germany as his only
friend in the world,so will hardly be able to alienate her for the sake of
the Austrians So you don't get a Stresa Front in this world
But can France afford not to ally with Italy in the long run?

Regards
Oliver
mike stone
2003-12-03 13:43:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Oliver Neukum
But can France afford not to ally with Italy in the long run?
How long a run?

OTL they didn't come together in time to prevent the anschluss, and in this AH
their relations are likely to be as bad or worse
--
Mike Stone - Peterborough England

Call nothing true until it has been officially denied
Oliver Neukum
2003-12-03 16:34:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by mike stone
Post by Oliver Neukum
But can France afford not to ally with Italy in the long run?
How long a run?
1940 and later.
Post by mike stone
OTL they didn't come together in time to prevent the anschluss, and in
this AH their relations are likely to be as bad or worse
As are their needs and insecurities.

Both are threatened by Germany which they cannot face alone.
France IMHO is unlikly to fully trust Britain and is from its point
of view probably justified to think so.
At some point France's security interests are more important than
Ethiopians or Albanians. If Italy still goes for Albania, which
should drive Jugoslavija and Greece into the German camp joining
Finland and the Baltic states.

Regards
Oliver
alfred montestruc
2003-12-02 07:40:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bernardz
At the end of WW1, almost every German was resentful over the result
particularly the loss of land both in Alsace-Lorraine and Poland. Even
if Hitler had never come to power, a revitalized Germany would have
demanded territory changes in the region nearby.
As in the OTL sooner or later Germany would have demanded that Poland
give something. Poland would have refused. If war breaks out between
Poland and Germany, it would have taken some wise acts of politicians to
have stopped a war from expanding or risk the development of a German
super state in Europe.
How about something a bit simpler: What if an upset and deranged
individual (possibly an upset Czech, or a Jew upset about any number
of provocations by the Nazi government, kills Adolph Hitler with a
single shot to the head from a high powered rifle in say May 1939. I
don't think whomever takes over from Hitler will be as stark raving
mad in terms of shooting craps with armies. Will the attack on Poland
go?
phil hunt
2003-12-02 18:40:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by alfred montestruc
How about something a bit simpler: What if an upset and deranged
individual (possibly an upset Czech, or a Jew upset about any number
of provocations by the Nazi government, kills Adolph Hitler with a
single shot to the head from a high powered rifle in say May 1939.
I think anyone shooting Hitler may well not be deranged. :-)
Post by alfred montestruc
I
don't think whomever takes over from Hitler will be as stark raving
mad in terms of shooting craps with armies. Will the attack on Poland
go?
The immediate effect is a power struggle in Germany, which Goering
probably wins. It's possible that as part of the power stuggle,
particularly if Hitler's assassin is Jewish, there will be pograms,
as the contenders for power vie to prove how fervently National
Socialist they are.

Until the new leader is firmly in power, there will be no attack on
Poland. And probably not after: Poland and Germany are both
dictatorships with a dislike of the USSR, so it's easy to imagine
they'd find common cause.
--
"It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia
(Email: <***@zen.co.ku>, but first subtract 275 and reverse
the last two letters).
alfred montestruc
2003-12-04 18:00:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by phil hunt
Post by alfred montestruc
How about something a bit simpler: What if an upset and deranged
individual (possibly an upset Czech, or a Jew upset about any number
of provocations by the Nazi government, kills Adolph Hitler with a
single shot to the head from a high powered rifle in say May 1939.
I think anyone shooting Hitler may well not be deranged. :-)
Agree. But it would be almost sure suicide, and thus an act a
deranged person might be more inclied to do than a non-deraged person.
Post by phil hunt
Post by alfred montestruc
I
don't think whomever takes over from Hitler will be as stark raving
mad in terms of shooting craps with armies. Will the attack on Poland
go?
The immediate effect is a power struggle in Germany, which Goering
probably wins. It's possible that as part of the power stuggle,
particularly if Hitler's assassin is Jewish, there will be pograms,
as the contenders for power vie to prove how fervently National
Socialist they are.
Reasonable.
Post by phil hunt
Until the new leader is firmly in power, there will be no attack on
Poland. And probably not after: Poland and Germany are both
dictatorships with a dislike of the USSR, so it's easy to imagine
they'd find common cause.
Agree and so WWII does not happen. Though a later starting war
involving the USSR, Poland and Germany is possible, even likely. If
the USSR attacks Poland, I can see a Polish-German-French-British
allience fighting it.
Angus McLellan
2003-12-04 20:21:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by alfred montestruc
Post by phil hunt
Post by alfred montestruc
How about something a bit simpler: What if an upset and deranged
individual (possibly an upset Czech, or a Jew upset about any number
of provocations by the Nazi government, kills Adolph Hitler with a
single shot to the head from a high powered rifle in say May 1939.
I think anyone shooting Hitler may well not be deranged. :-)
Agree. But it would be almost sure suicide, and thus an act a
deranged person might be more inclied to do than a non-deraged person.
<snip>

I don't think there's the least bit of evidence that Maurice Bavaud
was deranged.

Angus
--
"It is amazing what you can discover about people when you are willing
to just make stuff up." James Nicholl
alfred montestruc
2003-12-03 16:36:49 UTC
Permalink
Test
Nicholas Smid
2003-12-03 09:20:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bernardz
At the end of WW1, almost every German was resentful over the result
particularly the loss of land both in Alsace-Lorraine and Poland. Even
if Hitler had never come to power, a revitalized Germany would have
demanded territory changes in the region nearby.
As in the OTL sooner or later Germany would have demanded that Poland
give something. Poland would have refused. If war breaks out between
Poland and Germany, it would have taken some wise acts of politicians to
have stopped a war from expanding or risk the development of a German
super state in Europe.
A simple, relitivly, way of avoiding WWII, atleast as we know it, would be
to avoid the Wall street crash, or make it much milder, with a less insain
round of tariff wars following. Instead of the great depretion you get a
mild slump for a few years. Germany was starting to recover from Hyper
inflasion and Hitler, like the Comunists, was still well off on the lunatic
fringe. With money in their banks and jobs to go to no way is middle class
Germany going to have anything to do with that crazy Austrian and his party
stays just another extream right wing party of no real importance.
By the late 30's Germany is feeling fairly prosperous and for their own
reasons a center right coalition quietly egnores the 100,000 man army idea.
Saarland has already voted to rejoin Germany, there was never any question
of that. Some time later they get into a pissing match over Danzig, a
refarendum votes hugly for the cityto join Germany, Poland goes balistic and
occupies the city. Germany moves to defend its citizens. France and the UK
could care less, boyond pious speeches, Poland gets a good kicking over,
loses those areas with German majorities, or even large minorities, Russia
makes a few 'ajustments' in the east leaving a much smaller and more humble
Poland as a buffer state.
No need to invade the rest of eastern Europe Germany can exert all the
control she wants there by economic means at a fraction of the cost, though
its possible they unite with Austria in time.
France starts getting very nervious about Germany again but its more like
pre WWI than imminent danger.
Bernardz
2003-12-03 12:25:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Nicholas Smid
Post by Bernardz
At the end of WW1, almost every German was resentful over the result
particularly the loss of land both in Alsace-Lorraine and Poland. Even
if Hitler had never come to power, a revitalized Germany would have
demanded territory changes in the region nearby.
As in the OTL sooner or later Germany would have demanded that Poland
give something. Poland would have refused. If war breaks out between
Poland and Germany, it would have taken some wise acts of politicians to
have stopped a war from expanding or risk the development of a German
super state in Europe.
A simple, relitivly, way of avoiding WWII, atleast as we know it, would be
to avoid the Wall street crash, or make it much milder, with a less insain
round of tariff wars following.
A simpler one is stop the early election that caused a series of
continuous elections that took place in Germany in the early 1930s.
By the time the polls would have come if scheduled Germany would be
partly out of the depression and Hitler would be a minor politician of
no significant importance.

But I am not looking for a simple POD but trying to determine what went
wrong. Britain and France on top in 1920.
Post by Nicholas Smid
Instead of the great depretion you get a
mild slump for a few years. Germany was starting to recover from Hyper
inflasion and Hitler, like the Comunists, was still well off on the lunatic
fringe. With money in their banks and jobs to go to no way is middle class
Germany going to have anything to do with that crazy Austrian and his party
stays just another extream right wing party of no real importance.
By the late 30's Germany is feeling fairly prosperous and for their own
reasons a center right coalition quietly egnores the 100,000 man army idea.
Saarland has already voted to rejoin Germany, there was never any question
of that. Some time later they get into a pissing match over Danzig, a
refarendum votes hugly for the cityto join Germany, Poland goes balistic and
occupies the city. Germany moves to defend its citizens. France and the UK
could care less, boyond pious speeches, Poland gets a good kicking over,
loses those areas with German majorities, or even large minorities, Russia
makes a few 'ajustments' in the east leaving a much smaller and more humble
Poland as a buffer state.
At best Poland would be split into a German and Russian parts and a
puppet German government. Which is not unusual model for Poland!
Post by Nicholas Smid
No need to invade the rest of eastern Europe Germany can exert all the
control she wants there by economic means at a fraction of the cost, though
its possible they unite with Austria in time.
In such a world where Britain and France did not intervene most of
Eastern Europe would give Germany almost of the German populated regions
without a fight.
Post by Nicholas Smid
France starts getting very nervious about Germany again but its more like
pre WWI than imminent danger.
We are back to WW1, except now Germany has established itself as a
superstate in the region, France is in much greater danger because
Germany is far bigger, more powerful and it does not have Russia as an
ally. Germany would still want her place in the sun. That involves for
starters, Belgium and France giving up territory too.
--
Intelligence does not imply reason or purpose

17th saying of Bernard
A Tsar Is Born
2003-12-05 03:06:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bernardz
At the end of WW1, almost every German was resentful over the result
particularly the loss of land both in Alsace-Lorraine and Poland. Even
if Hitler had never come to power, a revitalized Germany would have
demanded territory changes in the region nearby.
As in the OTL sooner or later Germany would have demanded that Poland
give something. Poland would have refused. If war breaks out between
Poland and Germany, it would have taken some wise acts of politicians to
have stopped a war from expanding or risk the development of a German
super state in Europe.
In 1919 Marshal Foch said, This isn't a peace treaty -- it's a truce for 20
years!
What he meant was that it was a mistake to permit Germany to remain united.
But there was no longer any way to break it up -- Germany had fostered
national feeling (since 1815) at the expense of particularist feeling
everywhere except in, perhaps, Bavaria.

But if you accept Hitler coming to power, the first time he could have been
stopped -- and it could have been done quite easily -- was March, 1936, the
first time he violated Versailles, by fortifying the Rhineland. France could
have stopped him with barely any effort -- the French army was much the
largest in Europe (still true in 1940, by the way) -- but did not because
(a) the British were all out of town for the weekend and did not return
calls to express support, and (b) the French army and body politic were
being torn apart by feuds among communists and fascists, and the government
was seriously afraid of a civil war. This is also why they did not help the
Spanish Republic, which was facing the same situation, in the civil war that
broke out the following July.

Hitler could not have started with Poland because Czechoslovakia was stuck
behind the lines that would advance there, and could cut him off. Also,
Poland and Czech. were allies of France. So Czech. had to be dismantled
first. It was also landlocked, so the British couldn't have helped much if
they'd wanted to.

But the real reason the French and British wanted to accommodate Hitler was
that both were too much afraid of a possible Bolshevik takeover if they got
him overthrown to take serious action against him. For the same reason, they
did not seriously engage themselves to aid Stalin, though they did pressure
Poland to permit the Soviet army to enter their country to face Hitler. The
Poles refused -- and were heartily blamed by the French and the British for
this. But of course the Poles knew the Russians would treat them as
atrociously as the Germans would, and had no desire to be a sacrificial lamb
for French and British cowardice.

Hitler took advantage of all of this -- brilliantly. Everyone else was
afraid of each other, and he played them very skillfully. It would have been
different, perhaps, had Chamberlain not been an egotistical fool or had the
French Right not been pro-Hitler or had the Soviets been remotely honest or
had Mussolini been as strong as the French and British thought he was.

After Munich, Hitler could not have been stopped; before it, there wasn't
the will to do so.

Jean Coeur de Lapin
Bernardz
2003-12-07 05:14:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by A Tsar Is Born
Post by Bernardz
At the end of WW1, almost every German was resentful over the result
particularly the loss of land both in Alsace-Lorraine and Poland. Even
if Hitler had never come to power, a revitalized Germany would have
demanded territory changes in the region nearby.
As in the OTL sooner or later Germany would have demanded that Poland
give something. Poland would have refused. If war breaks out between
Poland and Germany, it would have taken some wise acts of politicians to
have stopped a war from expanding or risk the development of a German
super state in Europe.
In 1919 Marshal Foch said, This isn't a peace treaty -- it's a truce for 20
years!
What he meant was that it was a mistake to permit Germany to remain united.
But there was no longer any way to break it up -- Germany had fostered
national feeling (since 1815) at the expense of particularist feeling
everywhere except in, perhaps, Bavaria.
But if you accept Hitler coming to power, the first time he could have been
stopped -- and it could have been done quite easily -- was March, 1936, the
first time he violated Versailles, by fortifying the Rhineland. France could
have stopped him with barely any effort -- the French army was much the
largest in Europe (still true in 1940, by the way) -- but did not because
(a) the British were all out of town for the weekend and did not return
calls to express support, and (b) the French army and body politic were
being torn apart by feuds among communists and fascists, and the government
was seriously afraid of a civil war. This is also why they did not help the
Spanish Republic, which was facing the same situation, in the civil war that
broke out the following July.
Hitler could not have started with Poland because Czechoslovakia was stuck
behind the lines that would advance there, and could cut him off. Also,
Poland and Czech. were allies of France. So Czech. had to be dismantled
first. It was also landlocked, so the British couldn't have helped much if
they'd wanted to.
But the real reason the French and British wanted to accommodate Hitler was
that both were too much afraid of a possible Bolshevik takeover if they got
him overthrown to take serious action against him. For the same reason, they
did not seriously engage themselves to aid Stalin, though they did pressure
Poland to permit the Soviet army to enter their country to face Hitler. The
Poles refused -- and were heartily blamed by the French and the British for
this. But of course the Poles knew the Russians would treat them as
atrociously as the Germans would, and had no desire to be a sacrificial lamb
for French and British cowardice.
Hitler took advantage of all of this -- brilliantly. Everyone else was
afraid of each other, and he played them very skillfully. It would have been
different, perhaps, had Chamberlain not been an egotistical fool or had the
French Right not been pro-Hitler or had the Soviets been remotely honest or
had Mussolini been as strong as the French and British thought he was.
Before Munich, Hitler would not have gone without a fight. Even if it
was hopeless.
Post by A Tsar Is Born
After Munich, Hitler could not have been stopped; before it, there wasn't
the will to do so.
After Munich he was stopped but it took a world war to do it.
--
Intelligence does not imply reason or purpose

17th saying of Bernard
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...