So, in a WW2 context, the Allies and Axis powers were at war due to overt aggression by Germany and Japan. There was very little question about who started the war. The only real question for the Allies was their overall strategy for victory.
Polish Guarantee
Sure. But Germany knew there was an alliance between Britain, France, and Poland and chose to go to war with Poland anyway. Knowing full well that by doing so they were starting a war with England and France.
Germany made the choice of war and it is naïve to think otherwise.
Just like Japan chose to attack Hawaii. They didn't attack New York or Texas. So why did New York and Texas also go to war against Japan and not just Hawaii? Japan knew that they were taking on New York and Texas when they attacked Hawaii. Just like Germany knew they were taking on England and France when they attacked Poland.
0 x
A fool can throw out more questions than a wise man can answer. -RZehr
So, in a WW2 context, the Allies and Axis powers were at war due to overt aggression by Germany and Japan. There was very little question about who started the war. The only real question for the Allies was their overall strategy for victory.
Polish Guarantee
Sure. But Germany knew there was an alliance between Britain, France, and Poland and chose to go to war with Poland anyway. Knowing full well that by doing so they were starting a war with England and France.
Germany made the choice of war and it is naïve to think otherwise.
Just like Japan chose to attack Hawaii. They didn't attack New York or Texas. So why did New York and Texas also go to war against Japan and not just Hawaii? Japan knew that they were taking on New York and Texas when they attacked Hawaii. Just like Germany knew they were taking on England and France when they attacked Poland.
I understand the line of reasoning...it is the standard perspective. That said, from the German perspective in 1939, Poland wasn't even a real nation. It was created out of thin air a few years before, carved out of what was pre-WWI Germany. They weren't "attacking" it...they were merely reclaiming what was Germany for hundreds of years prior to the illegitimate Treaty of Versailles that that the USA itself never could ratify because of the terms.
The American Pat Buchanan and the British historian, Niall Ferguson, have done quite a bit of historical work on this. Niall's book in particular is really good.
Sure. But Germany knew there was an alliance between Britain, France, and Poland and chose to go to war with Poland anyway. Knowing full well that by doing so they were starting a war with England and France.
Germany made the choice of war and it is naïve to think otherwise.
Just like Japan chose to attack Hawaii. They didn't attack New York or Texas. So why did New York and Texas also go to war against Japan and not just Hawaii? Japan knew that they were taking on New York and Texas when they attacked Hawaii. Just like Germany knew they were taking on England and France when they attacked Poland.
I understand the line of reasoning...it is the standard perspective. That said, from the German perspective in 1939, Poland wasn't even a real nation. It was created out of thin air a few years before, carved out of what was pre-WWI Germany. They weren't "attacking" it...they were merely reclaiming what was Germany for hundreds of years prior to the illegitimate Treaty of Versailles that that the USA itself never could ratify because of the terms.
The American Pat Buchanan and the British historian, Niall Ferguson, have done quite a bit of historical work on this. Niall's book in particular is really good.
You are conflating two separate issues:
1. Did Germany UNDERSTAND that they were declaring a wider war against Britain and France when they invaded Poland? Yes, this is most certainly the case given that their overall war strategy was to turn west immediately after dividing up Poland between themselves and the Soviets and attack France. In other words, the German war plan was to (1) attack Poland followed by (2) attacking France. So yes, Germany clearly understood that they were declaring war against Britain and France. That was the plan.
2. What was Germany's rationale for attacking Poland? Obviously they didn't attack Poland by accident. They had a purpose. Nazi propagandists at the time falsely claimed that Poland was persecuting German-speaking Poles. They also falsely accused Poland of conspiring with Britain and France to encircle and dismember Germany. They also staged a false attack against a German radio station to give Hitler cause to invade. But yes, Poland was just a small part of Germany's larger plans to expand into a larger German-speaking Reich that spanned from Russia to the Atlantic. Hitler laid it all out in detail in Mein Kampf.
BTW, the notion that Poland was a "fake" nation established by treaty is the SAME EXACT argument that Hamas makes for attacking Israel. Although Hamas actually has a BETTER case than Germany did.
0 x
A fool can throw out more questions than a wise man can answer. -RZehr
This is an interesting topic philosophically. Because it comes down to the question of how does one end a war?
WW2 is a case in point. Arguably the war was lost for both Germany and Japan by 1942 when both were at the greatest extent of their conquests.
For Germany, 1942 ended with enormous German defeats in the battle of Stalingrad in Russia and the battle of El Alamein in North Africa. Those two losses meant that Germany was never going to gain access to the oil fields in either Saudi Arabia or the Caucasus in southern Russia. Without oil, the German empire was unsustainable. After Stalingrad and El Alamein, Germany never again regained the offensive. The next three years was one long slow retreat back to Germany with a few unsuccessful attempts to regain the offensive in Kursk and the Ardennes. The writing was on the wall. Germany was going to lose. The only question was how long it was going to take and how many lives would be destroyed and lost.
In the Pacific, 1942 marked the battles of Midway and Guadalcanal which turned back Japan at the moment when the Japanese empire at its greatest extent. After 1942 the war in the Pacific was simply one Japanese defeat after another as the empire slowly contracted back towards Japan. Again, the writing was on the wall. The only question was how long it would last and how many people would die.
In both cases, the most brutal and deadly battles all came after 1942 when the ultimate end of the war was all but decided. And in both theaters the end of the war in 1945 marked some of the worst and most deadly fighting. So how do the Allies speed the conclusion of the war and bring the enormous war machine to a final halt? And did Dresden play a roll in this or not?
The more thought provoking question is Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The United States and British had basically three strategic options for bringing the war with Japan to an end.
Option 1: Invasion of the Japanese home islands. Based on experiences in Okinawa and Saipan, this would likely have dragged the war out into 1946 and resulted in absolutely catastrophic casualties on both sides including potentially millions of civilians. And would have ground Japan back to the stone age.
Option 2: Blockade of Japan. Essentially impose a naval blockade around Japan and starve it into submission. This would likely have dragged the war out into 1947. Without oil, most aspects of the Japanese economy would grind to a halt, even agriculture would be near impossible without fuel. Again, civilian deaths from the resulting famine would be in the millions. And a halt by US and British/Australian forces would invite Russia to invade from the north, dropping an iron curtain over much of east Asia just like they did in eastern Europe.
Option 3: Atomic bomb. We know how that played out in terms of deaths and bringing the war to an early end.
Did Truman make the choice that led to the least loss of both Japanese and American life and quickest end to the war? That is the question and it isn't an easy one to answer.
0 x
A fool can throw out more questions than a wise man can answer. -RZehr
Josh wrote: ↑Wed Oct 11, 2023 9:28 pm
To not have wars, stop fighting.
Well yes.
And the way to get there in an international world is to make it so punitively costly for any country to ever start at war that it is no longer considered an option.
So long as countries feel they have more to gain than lose by going to war we will continue to have them.
0 x
A fool can throw out more questions than a wise man can answer. -RZehr
Josh wrote: ↑Wed Oct 11, 2023 9:28 pm
To not have wars, stop fighting.
Well yes.
And the way to get there in an international world is to make it so punitively costly for any country to ever start at war that it is no longer considered an option.
So long as countries feel they have more to gain than lose by going to war we will continue to have them.
So you're saying the only way to stop war is to make war more terrible?
That's what nations have been trying to do for thousands of years - make war so terrible for their enemies that their enemies no longer consider war an option. It hasn't been working.
