Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
- Russia (Slavic) played a significant part in the Nazis victory over Poland, as did the bull**** lies fed by France/UK which forced Poland to alter it's defense plans. Chances of Germany occupying Poland, Russia and other slavic nations was not realistic.
The Germans invaded and occupied Poland from 1939 until driven out by the Russians in 1944-45. The Germans invaded and occupied large parts of Russia from 1941 to 1944, when they were driven back across the pre-war border.
The likelihood of the British and French actually protecting Polish independence was non-existent: "the fate of Poland depends on the final outcome of the war, which will depend on our ability to defeat Germany rather than to aid Poland" (Anglo French meeting, May 1939). But in the event they did actually declare war on Germany, and that was no small thing. Then the USSR ivaded Poland, but neither Britan nor France raised any objection.
Hitler in 1939 offered to renew the German-Polish non-aggrssion treaty of 1934 in return for Poland handing over Danzig/Gdansk to Germany, and for concessions in the Polish Corridor. Poland refused. Hitler then started planning in March 1939 for an invasion of Poland; this fitted a deliberate long-term strategy of his, which he had being implementing since he'd come to power. In August he set up a pact with the Soviets. That was them sorted, leaving him free to attack Poland; happy days.
Do you think Poland should have handed over parts of their country to Germany to satisfy Hitler's long-term strategy?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sharky8828
- "Giesler: “Until the last massive snub by the Polish leadership at the end of August 1939, he couldn’t imagine that they would let it come to a fight.'" [Hitler's #1 target was always Russia. Poland snubbing him, forced Adolf to cooperate with Stalin].
You quote Caroline Yeager. I recommend you stick to proper historical analysis and not take seriously someone who is quite openly pro-Nazi, a White Supremacist, and an apologist for Hitler.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sharky8828
- What American sacrifice? When they finally decided to stop playing baseball
418,500 US WWII deaths counts as a sacrifice, I suggest. I have heard that America entered WWII when attacked by Japan (Germany's ally since 1938) on Dec 7 1942. Do you think otherwise? The connection with baseball is not clear to me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sharky8828
-Western propaganda ignoring that Hitler tried multiple times to alliance with Poland is a major blunder. Nazis lost far more than they gained by invading Poland: Bringing France/UK into the War. Like I stated before, if Poland takes Hitler's offer then there is no reason to head West and France/UK/USA don't come to Russia's defense. Poland was a crucial domino, arguably only less so than Russia. It's shocking that these agenda driven narratives are still alive today.
Hitler's offer to Poland, simply phrased, was: "Hand over Danzig - or we'll attack you". Any other view ignores the truth about Hitler's ambitions for Germany. It's shocking to think that anyone today imagines otherwise.
It seems that you have a fairly good grasp on the subject. What was the reason the U.S. went to war then? You seem to dismiss that the Zimmerman telegram or USW were the reasons. I tend to agree since these were reactionary decisions by Germany to a possible war with the U.S. So what was the real reason(s)?
I also tend to agree that U.S. relations with Britain and France hit a low point by 1916. There were diplomatic tensions between these countries.
It seems that you have a fairly good grasp on the subject. What was the reason the U.S. went to war then? You seem to dismiss that the Zimmerman telegram or USW were the reasons. I tend to agree since these were reactionary decisions by Germany to a possible war with the U.S. So what was the real reason(s)?
I also tend to agree that U.S. relations with Britain and France hit a low point by 1916. There were diplomatic tensions between these countries.
I would say that unrestricted submarine warfare was definitely a huge factor. Germany resumed USW on February 1 and only two days later on Feb 3, the USA broke relations with Germany. By early April the US Congress officially declared war on Germany and later in the year Brazil also declared war on Germany because of USW.
I am not sure about the effect of the Zimmerman telegram although it certainly help damage relations between the Germans and the Americans (which is why the British released it in the first place).
The Germans had already backed down from USW earlier in the war. They knew the damage it was doing to neutral nations like the USA, Brazil and the Netherlands. And they knew how strong Woodrow Wilson felt about it.
So when the Germans restarted USW in 1917, did Wilson take this a personal challenge against him? Did he feel he was being ignored or dismissed by the Germans? In other words, did he feel that not only the United States was being ignored and disrespected by the Germans but Woodrow Wilson as President was being disrespected by the Germans?
Only Wilson knows for sure but it would surprise me that at least some small part of Wilson was outraged because he felt the Germans were personally dismissing him.
The Germans invaded and occupied Poland from 1939 until driven out by the Russians in 1944-45. The Germans invaded and occupied large parts of Russia from 1941 to 1944, when they were driven back across the pre-war border.
The likelihood of the British and French actually protecting Polish independence was non-existent: "the fate of Poland depends on the final outcome of the war, which will depend on our ability to defeat Germany rather than to aid Poland" (Anglo French meeting, May 1939). But in the event they did actually declare war on Germany, and that was no small thing. Then the USSR ivaded Poland, but neither Britan nor France raised any objection.
Hitler in 1939 offered to renew the German-Polish non-aggrssion treaty of 1934 in return for Poland handing over Danzig/Gdansk to Germany, and for concessions in the Polish Corridor. Poland refused. Hitler then started planning in March 1939 for an invasion of Poland; this fitted a deliberate long-term strategy of his, which he had being implementing since he'd come to power. In August he set up a pact with the Soviets. That was them sorted, leaving him free to attack Poland; happy days.
Do you think Poland should have handed over parts of their country to Germany to satisfy Hitler's long-term strategy?
You quote Caroline Yeager. I recommend you stick to proper historical analysis and not take seriously someone who is quite openly pro-Nazi, a White Supremacist, and an apologist for Hitler.
418,500 US WWII deaths counts as a sacrifice, I suggest. I have heard that America entered WWII when attacked by Japan (Germany's ally since 1938) on Dec 7 1942. Do you think otherwise? The connection with baseball is not clear to me.
Hitler's offer to Poland, simply phrased, was: "Hand over Danzig - or we'll attack you". Any other view ignores the truth about Hitler's ambitions for Germany. It's shocking to think that anyone today imagines otherwise.
1. Russia also invaded and occupied Poland in 1939
2. Stating UK/France had no intention of honoring their treaty fuels the argument that Poland made the wrong decision
3. Should Poland have handed over parts of the country (While gaining other parts) VS be occupied by Russia for the next 50 years?
4. I could not care less about some silly western labels about Caroline Yeager. Did you care about the European labels made about George Bush?
5. Why are you including deaths in Asia in reference to American sacrifice in Europe? Furthermore, deaths that occurred after the European War was over
6. "Hitler also made an effort to influence the Poles into joining the Anti-Comintern Pact and spoke of his intention to settle territorial disputes between Germany and Poland" "Poland would be granted territory of its own, to its northeast in Ukraine and Belarus if it agreed to wage war against Soviet Union"
You have much to read on the subject, if you have the interest. Otherwise, I would recommend not voicing your perspective in Europe, or you'll be laughed at.
It seems that you have a fairly good grasp on the subject. What was the reason the U.S. went to war then? You seem to dismiss that the Zimmerman telegram or USW were the reasons. I tend to agree since these were reactionary decisions by Germany to a possible war with the U.S. So what was the real reason(s)?
I also tend to agree that U.S. relations with Britain and France hit a low point by 1916. There were diplomatic tensions between these countries.
I think you misunderstand me a bit.
I do regard USW and the ZT as the main causes. I just think that if limited to armed ships (a distinct possibility) USW might not have provoked a breach. That would not have threatened American ships (since at this point none were armed) and it could reasonably have been argued that Americans who travelled on an armed belligerent ship were in the same position as if they had been on, say, a destroyer. They would have to take their chance.
In his earlier notes Wilson had not distinguished between armed and unarmed merchantmen, taking the traditional position that merchant ships were entitled to arm "for self defence" [1]. However, in 1916 Britain had started putting heavier armament on its merchantmen, and advising them to sail directly at any U-boat that challenged them, ie try to ram it. IOW they were now to behave much more like warships. As Devlin notes, these actions would have justified Wilson in changing his position, and his actions [or rather inactions] make it plain that to avoid war he would have done so.
When two armed merchantmen, Marina and Arabia, were torpedoed in late 1916, Wilson allowed Secretary Lansing to send the usual protest notes, but took no further action. Lansing sent him a memo proposing severance of diplomatic relations, to which Wilson did not respond. A second note was also ignored, and in Jan 1917 Lansing sent a third, urging that if no action were taken, the US would in effect have abandoned its position insofar as armed vessels were concerned. He was most upset when Wilson responded, that yes indeed, that might be unavoidable. However, the issue was rendered moot when soon afterward the Germans announced full-blown USW.
So it looks pretty clear that had Germany gone for the more limited USW, Wilson would have held his nose and accepted it. Nor would it have restricted Germany enough to matter, since the subs of that era had only a modest supply of torpedoes, and in practice could easily have used all of them on armed ships, given that by this point most British ships were either armed or in process of being.
Unfortunately, Wilson's retreat was only in action, not in (public) word, and doesn't seem to have registered with the Germans. Had they been a bit more perceptive, and recognised the implied offer, they would not have assumed that war with the US was imminent [2], and so there'd have been no ZT, which was sent precisely in anticipation of this.
As for Wilson's other motive(s), if any, I don't think they amounted to much. He would certainly have dearly liked to have a role in the peace settlement, but given how he was clearly agonising over the decision even as late as mid-March, it seems pretty clear that he wouldn't have gone to war for that reason alone. At most, it may have weakened his resolve to stay neutral, but German actions were doing that in any case.
[1] This was clearly a rather elastic term, and there was no legal definition of what constituted defensive armament. In practice, the US government indicated that for them it meant a gun of no more than six inches calibre, which should not be mounted forward. IOW it was ok for a merchantman to have one six-inch gun, mounted aft. However, by Summer 1916 Britain was going well beyond that unofficial limit.
[2] This at least was what they said for the record, in Cabinet meetings. However, in private conversation some of them seem to have been more hopeful. Zimmermann, when saying goodbye to Ambassador Gerard and his wife, expressed confidence that Wilson would never go to war, and Ludendorff expressed a similar view to a young officer who was concerned about war with America. Their apparent readiness to accept war with the US may in part at least have reflected a deep down suspicion that Wilson was "all mouth" and would never really do it.
Last edited by Mikestone8; 03-03-2014 at 01:48 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
