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 was ready to "help" Poland in the same way Hitler only wanted a corridor to Danzig Polish politicians knew very well that if they let the red army in, it would never leave, not after 1920, not with the history both nations had and the communist plans of expanding to the west.
With all the time that's passed and books written about ww2, I'm always shocked so much propaganda lives today.
Poland was well aware of the threat Germany posed, so much they tried talking France into a preemptive war with Germany, before they manage to re-create the army fully. It was seen as warmongering then ..
I doubt Russia would use german invasion to invade Poland instead of Germany because Russia could face a war against western countries after Germany was defeated, because Stalin had been doing everything to avoid this threat. But when Hitler had attacked Poland and he became the real threat for France and England Stalin occupied eastern territories of Poland because he knew that allies needed Russia to fight against Germany and they would close their eyes on that Russia joined some polish territories to Ukraine and Belarus.
So Russia really could help Poland.
What Britain and France could have done - and IMHO should have done - is not guarantee Poland unless the Soviet Union also guaranteed Poland. The Allies really let the Soviets off the hook.
And they just would kept silence watching how Russia defeated Germany and all Germany - heart of Europe - became communist country? Without doubt they would attacked Germany and we had the same result like in 1945 was.
Allies should attacked german weak Western front in September 1945 and Hitler could be executed in 1940.
Hitler would not have been able to rise to power in Germany if not for the harsh and unfair terms imposed by the Western Allies in the Treaty of Versailles.
Fascism would perhaps not have gained much momentum in Italy if the Allies did not renege on their promise of all the territorial gains that Italy would receive for intervention in the First World War on their side. Italy had been one of the leading naval powers in the Med in the late 19th century before being unable to maintain
Japan would not have headed down the path of militarism if not for racist or discriminatory policies that the Western Allies adopted against the Japanese (i.e. strict US immigration policies, rejection of the Racial Equality Clause).
What do you think?
Prussia's treaty toward France following the short 1870-1 war was harsh and set a precedent.
Italy well I do not know enough about the rise of fascism there to respond. Spain had a fascist/nationalist movement as well and was neutral in the War. So did Greece. Fascist governments also arose in the SE European countries postwar if I am not mistaken. I wonder if there is a good book on the rise of fascist movements as a replacement for monarchies and as a counter to communism.
Japan had territorial ambitions since the Sino-Japanese War of 1894 and you are ignoring the Russo-Japanese War of 1904-05. Japanese aid was very modest compared to the needs of the Great War. The late arriving USA was far more involved.
Racism is a modern construct. Civilization was understood to be among the white powers only and entirely indisputable by those in authority. We can call it racism today but in the period in question it was the accepted norm.
Hitler would not have been able to rise to power in Germany if not for the harsh and unfair terms imposed by the Western Allies in the Treaty of Versailles.
Fascism would perhaps not have gained much momentum in Italy if the Allies did not renege on their promise of all the territorial gains that Italy would receive for intervention in the First World War on their side.
Japan would not have headed down the path of militarism if not for racist or discriminatory policies that the Western Allies adopted against the Japanese (i.e. strict US immigration policies, rejection of the Racial Equality Clause).
What do you think?
Just because you got your assets kicked in one war, one that helped kill 10,000,000 people and wound and disable millions more does NOT give you justification for creating and perpetuating a war that ultimately claimed 55 million more lives, does it? If anything, it's a miracle that Germany still exists.
For however they were treated at Versailles, they more than offset that by the exponential damage and death they caused in WWII? But hey, don't take my word for it, ask the Russians. They suffered 40% of those deaths. They might have an entirely different take on the whole subject. Had it not been for strategic needs, we may never have held West Germany all those years.
Again, frankly, it's a miracle the world did not rise up and slay every living German at the end of that war along with the Japanese. God knows that had ample justification to do so. Between the 6 million Jews and the forgotten 5.5 million that died with them in the extermination camps as well as the loss of life from the French, English and of course, Russians, it's a miracle they weren't all executed.
If anything, the world was overtly generous to Germany after WWII. They all owe a great deal of gratitude for their very existence to the restraint shown by the world after that debacle.
Hitler would not have been able to rise to power in Germany if not for the harsh and unfair terms imposed by the Western Allies in the Treaty of Versailles.
Fascism would perhaps not have gained much momentum in Italy if the Allies did not renege on their promise of all the territorial gains that Italy would receive for intervention in the First World War on their side.
Japan would not have headed down the path of militarism if not for racist or discriminatory policies that the Western Allies adopted against the Japanese (i.e. strict US immigration policies, rejection of the Racial Equality Clause).
What do you think?
NJGOAT has thoroughly and succinctly demolished the thesis of this thread; I have nothing to add directly to that.
However, I would like to point out that was was imposed on Germany after World War II was far more severe than after World War I. (And, as an aside, the 1919 Versailles Treaty was no more severe than the 1871 Treaty of Versailles that Prussia imposed on France, and it was certainly less severe than the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk that Imperial Germany imposed on the infant Soviet Union in 1918)
Vast swaths of eastern Germany were seized and transferred to Poland and the Soviet Union.
The forced expulsion of Germans from these territories resulted in half a million German deaths at the very least - the real number probably is in the seven figures.
The entire country was occupied, one-third of it brutally so (by the Soviets), and was directly administered by the conquering powers for four years, with the eastern third being effectively controlled by the Soviets for another four decades after that.
In 1953, an uprising against the Soviet occupiers was brutally suppressed, leaving hundreds of dead and thousands subsequently executed or imprisoned.
Enormous amounts of material infrastructure was seized by the Soviets and hauled away.
The obligations of the Versailles Treaty of 1919 pales in comparison.
By the logic of the notion presented in this thread, Germany's ultimate response to the demands forced upon it by the Allies at the end of the Second World War should have been more dictatorship, more invading of its neighbors, more genocide. But that has not happened. Germany is fully economically integrated with its European neighbors, enjoys close and very good relationships with historic rivals/foes France and Poland (not to mention the United Kingdom), maintains a small military that it only uses with reluctance, and is a flourishing liberal democracy.
And why is this? Because it is good for Germany. It behaves in its own self-interest, unlike how it behaved between 1933 and 1945, when it bahaved very foolishly and when it predictably brought catastrophe upon itself.
Germany post-World War I was an independent actor with choices. And the course it chose was the doing of no one but Germany.
What Britain and France could have done - and IMHO should have done - is not guarantee Poland unless the Soviet Union also guaranteed Poland. The Allies really let the Soviets off the hook.
Let Hitler attack Russia is better for you than stop him? Killing of thousands innocent people doesn't bother you, does it?
Aren't both correct? Racism played a large part in the Pacific War. The Japanese were deeply insulted upon learning that despite doing everything "right" in terms of behaving like a European colonial power, the west did not want to see a non western power establishing hegemony in the Far East. That apparently was the exclusive province of white people.
That was not easy to bear for a culture which viewed itself as racially superior and it helped to create an atmosphere where the most aggressive voices gained ascendancy, in this case the military with their severe Code of Bushido.
Part of what defined the interests of the US and Great Britain was the idea that the Japanese were stepping outside of their "place" by trying to become an imperial power. I do not see merit to arguing that it was self interest rather than racism, or racism rather than self interest, the two were actually fused at that point.
You want to know how Americans felt about the Japanese? Just look at the wartime propaganda. Buck teethed, glasses wearing, simian faced Japanese soldiers depicted laughing as they inflicted some shocking outrage on a woman or child.
Or consider the wartime internment of Japanese Americans. That we have come a long way recently in our attitudes about racism, does not erase our racist past.
GS, I don't deny that racism existed and was featured prominently in the Pacific War, I guess my argument would be more along the lines that racism was ultimately a "weapon" used in the fight, not the inherent reason for the fight as was implied earlier.
At the most basic level, would the US and Britain really have treated Japan any differently had it been a "white" nation, assuming all other factors were the same? I don't think they would have. Given Japan's rather limited role in WW1 they gained quite a bit of concessions and solidly became a "Great/Major Power" with their own colonial holdings affirmed by the other powers.
Yes, the "equality clause" was defeated, but not on the basis of how the Japanese were viewed, but the basis of what it would mean for other nations. For the United States, it was a problem as the treaty would never be affirmed by the 2/3rds necessary without the support of Southern segregationist Democrats. It was a problem for the British Empire due primarily to the "White Australia" policy.
Even in internment and quotas in the US, we see business interests being threatened and the racism being used as a tool to help protect something else. I'm not blind to the fact there was racism, but I find that it wasn't as central a motivator (at least in cases of relations vis-a-vis Japan) as many claim.
Quote:
Originally Posted by fellowjoe
I agreed that the Depression helped to increase Hitler's popularity and get him into power. But once in power, he set out to accomplish aims that violated the terms of Versailles, like rearmament, Rhineland and the annexation of Czechoslovakia.
Without such terms, he would not have a good excuse to test the limits of the British and French, and to lead the German nation down the path of war.
So, you are arguing that the flaw of Versailles was that it gave Hitler limits to test? Sorry, but that argument doesn't hold water.
Quote:
The clause DID meant 'equality for all races' although the Japanese intention was merely to guarantee their own equality. The reason why Japan went ahead with this clause was because it has been central to Japanese foreign policy and that it might gain widespread international support due to the other races that this clause may reach out to.
But this was later changed to 'equality for all nations' due to the sensitive issue of race, something that the Western Allies felt rather uncomfortable dealing with since they colonized the 'inferior' races. Yet, President Wilson and the British, on behalf of Australia which instituted the White Australia policy, rejected the new clause for their own convenience.
In fact, at the final conference, there was a clear majority (including France, Italy and even Japan's rival, China) that were in favour of the Racial Equality Clause. But this was ruled out by Wilson on the grounds for the need for unanimous decision.
What Japan wanted was for the Japanese to be seen as equal to the western powers and therefore granted the title to hold overseas colonies as a colonial power with all of the rights inherent to that position. Some of the desire was also born out of the lopsided treaties Japan had been forced to sign in the past after coming out of isolation. The Japanese really didn't understand the issue their wording caused for the the US and Britain.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Unsettomati
NJGOAT has thoroughly and succinctly demolished the thesis of this thread; I have nothing to add directly to that.
However, I would like to point out that was was imposed on Germany after World War II was far more severe than after World War I. (And, as an aside, the 1919 Versailles Treaty was no more severe than the 1871 Treaty of Versailles that Prussia imposed on France, and it was certainly less severe than the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk that Imperial Germany imposed on the infant Soviet Union in 1918)
Vast swaths of eastern Germany were seized and transferred to Poland and the Soviet Union.
The forced expulsion of Germans from these territories resulted in half a million German deaths at the very least - the real number probably is in the seven figures.
The entire country was occupied, one-third of it brutally so (by the Soviets), and was directly administered by the conquering powers for four years, with the eastern third being effectively controlled by the Soviets for another four decades after that.
In 1953, an uprising against the Soviet occupiers was brutally suppressed, leaving hundreds of dead and thousands subsequently executed or imprisoned.
Enormous amounts of material infrastructure was seized by the Soviets and hauled away.
The obligations of the Versailles Treaty of 1919 pales in comparison.
By the logic of the notion presented in this thread, Germany's ultimate response to the demands forced upon it by the Allies at the end of the Second World War should have been more dictatorship, more invading of its neighbors, more genocide. But that has not happened. Germany is fully economically integrated with its European neighbors, enjoys close and very good relationships with historic rivals/foes France and Poland (not to mention the United Kingdom), maintains a small military that it only uses with reluctance, and is a flourishing liberal democracy.
And why is this? Because it is good for Germany. It behaves in its own self-interest, unlike how it behaved between 1933 and 1945, when it bahaved very foolishly and when it predictably brought catastrophe upon itself.
Germany post-World War I was an independent actor with choices. And the course it chose was the doing of no one but Germany.
Excellent and often overlooked point. The German nation was completely dismantled after WW2, yet that is seen as a "better peace" then what Germany was forced to accept at Versailles.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Atai J.
They gave guarantee Poland just because they wanted to send Hitler a signal that he shouldn't attack France or England. But Hitler knew that he could attack Poland without problems from the West. And he was right. Allies could help Poland, but they didn't. Why? They hoped to involve Russia to this war. Their main mistake was a simple hope, not reasonable calculations.
The Allies declared war on Germany as soon as Germany invaded Poland and mobilized their militaries. Whether they were able to effectively intervene in the war is another topic, but a nation has no greater protest or resolve to show then declaring war.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Atai J.
I mean if Germany attacked France then Poland would attack Germany from the East. This agreement was to protect these three countries from german potential agression. But in fact it turned out that this agreement was a moral and political trap for Allies.
By the way Russia was ready to help Poland but polish politics didn't want to pass soviet army to polish territory. They all was so stupid and blind.
The Russians were ready to help annex Poland just as much as the Germans were.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Atai J.
Let Hitler attack Russia is better for you than stop him? Killing of thousands innocent people doesn't bother you, does it?
This isn't what he was saying. His statement was that a Soviet guarantee of Polish sovereignty would have most likely deterred Germany from going to war. At that point a war against Poland would have involved Britain, France and the Soviet Union from the beginning. Of course the status of Soviet-Polish relations and Soviet claims to Polish territory made that a non-sequitor for the Soviets in terms of "guaranteeing" anything Polish.
Let Hitler attack Russia is better for you than stop him? Killing of thousands innocent people doesn't bother you, does it?
No, what I am saying is that Poland was important as a buffer state between the Soviet Union and Germany. Therefore the Soviets had more interest protecting Poland then the western Allies. If Hitler invaded Poland - who was next on the menu? I am sure the Soviets read Mein Kampf.
Therefore the Allies should have insisted on neutrality unless the Soviets guaranteed Poland FIRST. Instead the British and French guaranteed Poland first, they thus took the burden off the Soviets. That is what allowed the infamous Nazi-Soviet Pact that allowed Hitler to finish off Poland and then turn his entire army westward against France.
At the most basic level, would the US and Britain really have treated Japan any differently had it been a "white" nation, assuming all other factors were the same? .
Not really possible to provide a definitive answer, but we do have the example of the British hegemony over India and the Dutch hegemony in Indonesia, neither of which seemed to constitute anything alarming to the US.
For racism to have been a factor for the Japanese, we only actually require their perception that they were being treated as some sort of junior partner, and that perception was certainly there.
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.
Polish politicians knew very well that if they let the red army in, it would never leave, not after 1920, not with the history both nations had and the communist plans of expanding to the west. 
