Why did Britain go to War over Poland in 1939?

[braalian]

Wow! Not sure where you get THAT analysis, but...

I bet like myself, others would love to see some credible academic sources that inform your views.

You must've been a star student at the military college.

Incredible. You're here as an ace in history, geography, military affairs...

View attachment 1088427

Here you have Dante's full attention and amazement at your ...

It is well known and widely accepted that in the early stages of Hitler’s aggression, the German military was still weaker than that of France. Germany hadn’t yet rearmed all the way. Most historians agree Hitler could have been stopped at this stage.

France, who had bled white during WWI, understandably took a defensive strategy and falsely believed the Maginot line and a chain of alliances with small nations surrounding Germany could protect them.

 

[Dante]

It is well known and widely accepted that in the early stages of Hitler’s aggression, the German military was still weaker than that of France. Germany hadn’t yet rearmed all the way. Most historians agree Hitler could have been stopped at this stage.

really?

Post a link or two

France, who had bled white during WWI, understandably took a defensive strategy and falsely believed the Maginot line and a chain of alliances with small nations surrounding Germany could protect them.

Really? Very simplistic statement.

 

[Litwin]

History has shown that Britain made a huge mistake by going to war with Germany for a second time in the 20th Century, losing its empire and reducing it to a third rate economic power. With WW1, it had to dust off a 100 year old international treaty recognizing Belgium's independence as an excuse to declare war and ruin its economy.

With WW2, Britain hastily put together a mutual defense treaty with Poland only a week before Poland was invaded by Germany (and the USSR), It then used this treaty as an excuse to declare war, even though Germany posed absolutely no threat to it. Once again, Britain claimed a pyrrhic victory over Germany while losing the rest of its empire and condemning Eastern Europe to Soviet domination for decades. Why did this happen? What was Britain's national interest in Poland?

German pre-war territory in Western Europe had already been restored, and Austria had willingly joined with Germany. The only German territory remaining in dispute was in the newly created states of Czechoslovakia and Poland. Czechoslovakia had never been a recognized entity prior to WW1, and it was already starting to break apart by the time Germany reclaimed the German areas of that country. As with the other territorial reacquisitions, Britain lodged some formal protests but did nothing to prevent them. British PM Neville Chamberlain claimed to have negotiated a big "peace" deal in Munich with Hitler, but it ended up being a feeble attempt at appeasement..

Then came Poland, which had been recreated after WW1 as an obstacle to German and Russian hegemony in Eastern Europe. Not only did it invalidate the borders agreed to by both countries the war, it also cut off Germany's largest and most important province (East Prussia) from the rest of the country. Germany wanted to restore a secure road and rail connection between them, as well as the formerly German city of Danzig which was along this route. Still smarting from public disparagement of his peace deal, Chamberlain urged Poland to reject any German proposals and then pledged that Britain would prevent any German incursions into its territory. When this happened in September 1939, his hollow assurances were exposed and he had to declare war on Germany to save face. Notably, he did not feel there was any reason to declare war on the Soviet Union, which invaded Poland from the east two weeks later! The Soviets also invaded Finland, and Chamberlain still felt there was no reason to declare war on them.

Other than some skirmishes involving British and German naval units, nothing much happened for the next six months. By then, Chamberlain was under increasing pressure to resign for getting Britain into another war with Germany. Yet in March 1940 he started bombing German naval facilities and laying plans to occupy Norway. The Germans got wind of these plans and acted first to protect their iron ore shipments from that country, also gaining permission to protect its shipping lanes around Denmark.

After futile attempts to arrange a peace agreement with Britain and France, who had deployed a huge standing army on its border, Germany invaded the latter in May 1940. Faced with this unfolding debacle, Chamberlain finally resigned and was replaced as Prime Minister by Winston Churchill. Churchill had maintained a hatred of Germany ever since he was removed as First Lord of the Admiralty because of his poor performance during WW1. Upon his appointment as PM, he began a campaign of bombing German cities and killing their inhabitants.

By the end of WW2 Britain was no longer "Great" and was already losing its influence in world affairs. As the ensuing 80 years have shown, it is no longer dominant even in European affairs. It seems that the decline of the British Empire weighs heavily on the shoulders of its two wartime Prime Ministers: The first motivated by spite, and the second motivated by malice against Germany.*

*It should be noted that subsequent German atrocities during WW2 were not known and played no part in Britain's declaration and prosecution of war against Germany.

Moscow empire suggests that Poland started WWII.
and dont forget that Ribbentrop-Molotov (Hitler -Stalin) Pact was signed by Hitler and Stalin to divide Europe

Putin claims Poland started WW2 and CIA blew up Nord Stream

Vladimir Putin 's interview with Tucker Carlson was packed full of bombshell revelations. But equally shocking were his outrageous claims that went unchallenged by his host.

www.dailymail.co.uk

ps

The Minister of Propaganda of the Third Reich, Joseph Goebells, confirmed that a lie repeated a thousand times becomes the truth. Research his intuition. This phenomenon also occurs in psychological laboratories and is called truth illusion research (Begg, Anas, & Farinacci, 92)

 

[Litwin]

I think there is an obvious parallel the Polish and Ukraine conflicts. The U.S. is fortunate to have President Trump, but the Europeans (especially Britain) seem not to have learned a thing. If they insist on another war, let them fight it out.

well, do You think that D. Trump is Neville Chamberlain N2?

ps

Peace through strength. Now we're back to war through weakness
"Mr. Gorbachev, TEAR, DOWN, THIS WALL"I get goosebumps and tears in my eyes, every single time I hear this historic and very iconic line.

 

[mikegriffith1]

Wow! Not sure where you get THAT analysis, but...

I bet like myself, others would love to see some credible academic sources that inform your views.

You must've been a star student at the military college.

Incredible. You're here as an ace in history, geography, military affairs...

Here you have Dante's full attention and amazement at your ...

LOL! Holy smokes. I mean, yikes. The fact that that Hitler sent troops into the Rhineland in March 1936 to see what France would do and planned on pulling the troops back if France responded forcefully is standard, accepted, undisputed history, as is the fact that France could have crushed Hitler's army at the time. This is WWII History 101 stuff. Historians universally regard this as a squandered opportunity to crush Hitler and a prime example of the fatal results of appeasement. Google it.

I mean, how can any adult educated in America or Europe not know this? Your astonishing ignorance of basic history has my "full attention and amazement." Your gaffe here rivals JoeB131's worst gaffes, and that's saying something.

It bears repeating that you're the same guy who argued that "likely" merely means "possibly."

 

[Dante]

LOL! Holy smokes. I mean, yikes. The fact that that Hitler sent troops into the Rhineland in March 1936 to see what France would do and planned on pulling the troops back if France responded forcefully is standard, accepted, undisputed history, as is the fact that France could have crushed Hitler's army at the time. This is WWII History 101 stuff. Historians universally regard this as a squandered opportunity to crush Hitler and a prime example of the fatal results of appeasement. Google it.

I mean, how can any adult educated in America or Europe not know this? Your astonishing ignorance of basic history has my "full attention and amazement." Your gaffe here rivals JoeB131's worst gaffes, and that's saying something.

It bears repeating that you're the same guy who argued that "likely" merely means "possibly."

no links?

o'tay

 

[Dante]

LOL! Holy smokes. I mean, yikes. The fact that that Hitler sent troops into the Rhineland in March 1936 to see what France would do and planned on pulling the troops back if France responded forcefully is standard, accepted, undisputed history, as is the fact that France could have crushed Hitler's army at the time. This is WWII History 101 stuff. Historians universally regard this as a squandered opportunity to crush Hitler and a prime example of the fatal results of appeasement. Google it.

I mean, how can any adult educated in America or Europe not know this? Your astonishing ignorance of basic history has my "full attention and amazement." Your gaffe here rivals JoeB131's worst gaffes, and that's saying something.

It bears repeating that you're the same guy who argued that "likely" merely means "possibly."

Even AI has you beat, hallucinations and all.

Where you're a dolt is in a narrative spin. You take facts, weave in a few thoughts of your own and put it all forth as what "historians all agree on" -- linking to no credible sources

What squandered opportunity? As if Hitler would go "Oh no! Let me pull back and be a good boy" Testing the waters for what he intended to do. Nothing Britain or France could have done would have halted Hitler's expansionist goals. War was coming. No way to avoid it. Like Russia in Ukraine.

Te best imbecility you post is "opportunity to crush Hitler" -- right. okay, okie dokie

​

On March 7, 1936, Hitler sent German troops into the Rhineland, a demilitarized zone established by the Treaty of Versailles, to test the strength of the French and British responses to German rearmament and aggressive foreign policy.​

Here's a more detailed explanation:​

​

Violation of the Treaty of Versailles:​

The Treaty of Versailles, which ended World War I, stipulated that Germany could not station troops in the Rhineland, a strip of land bordering France.​

​

Hitler's Strategy:​

Hitler viewed this as a way to test the waters and see if the other major European powers would resist his growing ambitions.​

Motivations for the Move:​

​

Breaking the Treaty: He sought to demonstrate his authority and his willingness to disregard international agreements.​

​

Weakening the Allies: By reoccupying the Rhineland, Hitler hoped to embolden Germany and potentially disrupt the alliance between France, Britain, and other nations.​

Military Advantage: The Rhineland's strategic location offered an advantage for potential future military action.​

​

Weak Response from France and Britain:​

Neither France nor Britain took military action against Germany.​

​

France was politically unstable and hesitant to take action without British support.​

​

Britain, facing its own internal divisions and a pacifist mood, also hesitated, eventually deciding that a conflict over the Rhineland was not worth the risks.​

​

Consequences:​

​

Hitler's move was a key step in his expansionist policy and ultimately emboldened him to pursue further aggression in the coming years.​

​

The weak response sent a clear signal to Hitler that he could act with impunity, and it contributed to the deterioration of international relations that led to World War II.​

​

Symbolic Nature of the Occupation:​

Hitler had initially sent only a small force of troops, possibly to increase the visual impact.​

 

[mikegriffith1]

no links?

o'tay

Do you want me to post links to prove the Earth is round too? You have no idea how you are embarrassing yourself, do you?

Your gaffe will go down as one of the most embarrassing and discrediting gaffes ever posted on this board.

Dante:

Even AI has you beat, hallucinations and all.

Where you're a dolt is in a narrative spin. You take facts, weave in a few thoughts of your own and put it all forth as what "historians all agree on" -- linking to no credible sources

What squandered opportunity? As if Hitler would go "Oh no! Let me pull back and be a good boy" Testing the waters for what he intended to do. Nothing Britain or France could have done would have halted Hitler's expansionist goals. War was coming. No way to avoid it. Like Russia in Ukraine.

Te best imbecility you post is "opportunity to crush Hitler" -- right. okay, okie dokie [SNIP]

LOL! And you're doubling down on your self-embarrassment. Not one syllable of the quotes you supplied disputes, much less refutes, the well-known fact that Hitler sent troops into the Rhineland to see what France and England would do (especially France), that Hitler planned on pulling the troops back immediately if France responded forcefully, and that France had a much bigger army than Hitler had at the time.

I notice you ignored the fact that Hitler was going to order his troops to pull back when he received an errant report that French troops had moved into Germany in response to his Rhineland incursion but was talked out of it by Neurath.

In response to your continued comical demand that I provide links to support the well-known facts I'm presenting, how about we say this: How about if you provide a single link that says that France's failure to respond to Hitler's movement of troops into the Rhineland was not a lost opportunity to stop Hitler? How about that? If you're right, you should have no problem coming up with such a link.

Speaking of AI, if you Google "Rhineland last chance to stop Hitler," here's what you get:

The Rhineland coup is often seen as the moment when Hitler could have been stopped with very little effort; the German forces involved in the move were small, compared to the much larger, and at the time more powerful, French military.

From "The German Occupation of the Rhineland," U.S. Naval Institute Proceedings:

When German troops occupied the Rhineland on March 7, 1936, the Nazi Third Reich succeeded in freeing Germany from the last fetter by which she had been bound after her defeat in 1918. More importantly, the Rhineland incident marks perhaps the last crucial occasion upon which the aggressive Nazi drive might have been checked with relatively little effort. (The German Occupation Of The Rhineland)

Is it starting to dawn on you that you have horribly blundered?

 

[mikegriffith1]

Dante:

Speaking of AI, if you Google "Rhineland last chance to stop Hitler," here's what you get:

The Rhineland coup is often seen as the moment when Hitler could have been stopped with very little effort; the German forces involved in the move were small, compared to the much larger, and at the time more powerful, French military.

From "The German Occupation of the Rhineland," U.S. Naval Institute Proceedings:

When German troops occupied the Rhineland on March 7, 1936, the Nazi Third Reich succeeded in freeing Germany from the last fetter by which she had been bound after her defeat in 1918. More importantly, the Rhineland incident marks perhaps the last crucial occasion upon which the aggressive Nazi drive might have been checked with relatively little effort. (The German Occupation Of The Rhineland)

This is literally the tip of the iceberg of the evidence about this well-known fact.

Again, is it starting to dawn on you that you have horribly blundered?

 

[mikegriffith1]

Dante:

Speaking of AI, if you Google "Rhineland last chance to stop Hitler," here's what you get:

The Rhineland coup is often seen as the moment when Hitler could have been stopped with very little effort; the German forces involved in the move were small, compared to the much larger, and at the time more powerful, French military.

From "The German Occupation of the Rhineland," U.S. Naval Institute Proceedings:

When German troops occupied the Rhineland on March 7, 1936, the Nazi Third Reich succeeded in freeing Germany from the last fetter by which she had been bound after her defeat in 1918. More importantly, the Rhineland incident marks perhaps the last crucial occasion upon which the aggressive Nazi drive might have been checked with relatively little effort. (The German Occupation Of The Rhineland)

This is literally the tip of the iceberg of the evidence about this well-known fact.

Again, is it starting to dawn on you that you have horribly blundered?

Now, I'm usually not one to cite Wikipedia, but even Wikipedia gets this well-known fact right:

The American journalist William L. Shirer wrote if the French had marched into the Rhineland,

... in March 1936 the two Western democracies, were given their last chance to halt, without the risk of a serious war, the rise of a militarized, aggressive, totalitarian Germany and, in fact – as we have seen Hitler admitting – bring the Nazi dictator and his regime tumbling down. They let the chance slip.

A German officer assigned to the Bendlerstrasse during the crisis told H. R. Knickerbocker during the Spanish Civil War: "... we knew that if the French marched, we were done. We had no fortifications, and no army to match the French. If the French had even mobilised, we should have been compelled to retire." The general staff, the officer said, considered Hitler's action suicidal. General Heinz Guderian, a German general interviewed by French officers after the Second World War, claimed: "If you French had intervened in the Rhineland in 1936 we should have been sunk and Hitler would have fallen." (Remilitarisation of the Rhineland - Wikipedia)

 

[Dante]

Do you want me to post links to prove the Earth is round too? You have no idea how you are embarrassing yourself, do you?

Your gaffe will go down as one of the most embarrassing and discrediting gaffes ever posted on this board.



LOL! And you're doubling down on your self-embarrassment. Not one syllable of the quotes you supplied disputes, much less refutes, the well-known fact that Hitler sent troops into the Rhineland to see what France and England would do (especially France), that Hitler planned on pulling the troops back immediately if France responded forcefully, and that France had a much bigger army than Hitler had at the time.

I notice you ignored the fact that Hitler was going to order his troops to pull back when he received an errant report that French troops had moved into Germany in response to his Rhineland incursion but was talked out of it by Neurath.

In response to your continued comical demand that I provide links to support the well-known facts I'm presenting, how about we say this: How about if you provide a single link that says that France's failure to respond to Hitler's movement of troops into the Rhineland was not a lost opportunity to stop Hitler? How about that? If you're right, you should have no problem coming up with such a link.

Speaking of AI, if you Google "Rhineland last chance to stop Hitler," here's what you get:

The Rhineland coup is often seen as the moment when Hitler could have been stopped with very little effort; the German forces involved in the move were small, compared to the much larger, and at the time more powerful, French military.

From "The German Occupation of the Rhineland," U.S. Naval Institute Proceedings:

When German troops occupied the Rhineland on March 7, 1936, the Nazi Third Reich succeeded in freeing Germany from the last fetter by which she had been bound after her defeat in 1918. More importantly, the Rhineland incident marks perhaps the last crucial occasion upon which the aggressive Nazi drive might have been checked with relatively little effort. (The German Occupation Of The Rhineland)

Is it starting to dawn on you that you have horribly blundered?

the aggressive Nazi drive was not going to be checked for long.

you're all over the place Mister Peabdoy

 

[Dante]

Now, I'm usually not one to cite Wikipedia, but even Wikipedia gets this well-known fact right:

The American journalist William L. Shirer wrote if the French had marched into the Rhineland,



A German officer assigned to the Bendlerstrasse during the crisis told H. R. Knickerbocker during the Spanish Civil War: "... we knew that if the French marched, we were done. We had no fortifications, and no army to match the French. If the French had even mobilised, we should have been compelled to retire." The general staff, the officer said, considered Hitler's action suicidal. General Heinz Guderian, a German general interviewed by French officers after the Second World War, claimed: "If you French had intervened in the Rhineland in 1936 we should have been sunk and Hitler would have fallen." (Remilitarisation of the Rhineland - Wikipedia)

Shirer? okie dokie

Hitler was not going to fall in 1936. It's all looking back bullshit

 

[martybegan]

History has shown that Britain made a huge mistake by going to war with Germany for a second time in the 20th Century, losing its empire and reducing it to a third rate economic power. With WW1, it had to dust off a 100 year old international treaty recognizing Belgium's independence as an excuse to declare war and ruin its economy.

With WW2, Britain hastily put together a mutual defense treaty with Poland only a week before Poland was invaded by Germany (and the USSR), It then used this treaty as an excuse to declare war, even though Germany posed absolutely no threat to it. Once again, Britain claimed a pyrrhic victory over Germany while losing the rest of its empire and condemning Eastern Europe to Soviet domination for decades. Why did this happen? What was Britain's national interest in Poland?

German pre-war territory in Western Europe had already been restored, and Austria had willingly joined with Germany. The only German territory remaining in dispute was in the newly created states of Czechoslovakia and Poland. Czechoslovakia had never been a recognized entity prior to WW1, and it was already starting to break apart by the time Germany reclaimed the German areas of that country. As with the other territorial reacquisitions, Britain lodged some formal protests but did nothing to prevent them. British PM Neville Chamberlain claimed to have negotiated a big "peace" deal in Munich with Hitler, but it ended up being a feeble attempt at appeasement..

Then came Poland, which had been recreated after WW1 as an obstacle to German and Russian hegemony in Eastern Europe. Not only did it invalidate the borders agreed to by both countries the war, it also cut off Germany's largest and most important province (East Prussia) from the rest of the country. Germany wanted to restore a secure road and rail connection between them, as well as the formerly German city of Danzig which was along this route. Still smarting from public disparagement of his peace deal, Chamberlain urged Poland to reject any German proposals and then pledged that Britain would prevent any German incursions into its territory. When this happened in September 1939, his hollow assurances were exposed and he had to declare war on Germany to save face. Notably, he did not feel there was any reason to declare war on the Soviet Union, which invaded Poland from the east two weeks later! The Soviets also invaded Finland, and Chamberlain still felt there was no reason to declare war on them.

Other than some skirmishes involving British and German naval units, nothing much happened for the next six months. By then, Chamberlain was under increasing pressure to resign for getting Britain into another war with Germany. Yet in March 1940 he started bombing German naval facilities and laying plans to occupy Norway. The Germans got wind of these plans and acted first to protect their iron ore shipments from that country, also gaining permission to protect its shipping lanes around Denmark.

After futile attempts to arrange a peace agreement with Britain and France, who had deployed a huge standing army on its border, Germany invaded the latter in May 1940. Faced with this unfolding debacle, Chamberlain finally resigned and was replaced as Prime Minister by Winston Churchill. Churchill had maintained a hatred of Germany ever since he was removed as First Lord of the Admiralty because of his poor performance during WW1. Upon his appointment as PM, he began a campaign of bombing German cities and killing their inhabitants.

By the end of WW2 Britain was no longer "Great" and was already losing its influence in world affairs. As the ensuing 80 years have shown, it is no longer dominant even in European affairs. It seems that the decline of the British Empire weighs heavily on the shoulders of its two wartime Prime Ministers: The first motivated by spite, and the second motivated by malice against Germany.*

*It should be noted that subsequent German atrocities during WW2 were not known and played no part in Britain's declaration and prosecution of war against Germany.

In 1939 there were two reasons. First, they knew Germany at that point wasn't going to stop with Poland, and Second, it goes back to centuries of British Foreign policy, never let one country have all the power in Continental Europe.

The British were actually far more gung ho over going to war over Poland than the French were.

 

[Dante]

Now, I'm usually not one to cite Wikipedia, but even Wikipedia gets this well-known fact right:

The American journalist William L. Shirer wrote if the French had marched into the Rhineland,



A German officer assigned to the Bendlerstrasse during the crisis told H. R. Knickerbocker during the Spanish Civil War: "... we knew that if the French marched, we were done. We had no fortifications, and no army to match the French. If the French had even mobilised, we should have been compelled to retire." The general staff, the officer said, considered Hitler's action suicidal. General Heinz Guderian, a German general interviewed by French officers after the Second World War, claimed: "If you French had intervened in the Rhineland in 1936 we should have been sunk and Hitler would have fallen." (Remilitarisation of the Rhineland - Wikipedia)

When William Christian Bullitt, Jr., newly appointed as American ambassador to France, visited Germany in May 1936 and met with Baron von Neurath there. On 18 May 1936, Bullitt reported to President Franklin Roosevelt:

(63): Is Tomorrow Hitler's
200 Questions on the Battle of Mankind
By H. R. Knickerbocker · 2013

(64): https://www.amazon.com/Pétain-gaulle-J-R-Tournoux/dp/B0000DM2WZ?tag=usmb-20

"Von Neurath said that it was the policy of the German government to do nothing active in foreign affairs until 'the Rhineland had been digested'. He explained that he meant that until the German fortifications had been constructed on the French and Belgian borders, the German government would do everything possible to prevent rather than encourage an outbreak by Nazis in Austria and would pursue a quiet line with regard to Czechoslovakia. 'As soon as our fortifications are constructed and the countries of Central Europe realize that France cannot enter German territory at will, all those countries will begin to feel very differently about their foreign policies and a new constellation will develop', he said".

and try and keep up with your own links (you left something out): The General Staff were usually wrong about Hitler. And this is all after the war. BS fed to the allies.

A German officer assigned to the Bendlerstrasse during the crisis told H. R. Knickerbocker during the Spanish Civil War: "... we knew that if the French marched, we were done. We had no fortifications, and no army to match the French. If the French had even mobilised, we should have been compelled to retire." The general staff, the officer said, considered Hitler's action suicidal. General Heinz Guderian, a German general interviewed by French officers after the Second World War, claimed: "If you French had intervened in the Rhineland in 1936 we should have been sunk and Hitler would have fallen."

j

 

[Dante]

In 1939 there were two reasons. First, they knew Germany at that point wasn't going to stop with Poland, and Second, it goes back to centuries of British Foreign policy, never let one country have all the power in Continental Europe.

The British were actually far more gung ho over going to war over Poland than the French were.

correct

But Mister (mikegriffith1) Peabody refuses to see the facts -- France was incapable of acting.

Peabody's own source:

Remilitarisation of the Rhineland - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[martybegan]

correct

But Mister (mikegriffith1) Peabody refuses to see the facts -- France was incapable of acting.

Peabody's own source:

Remilitarisation of the Rhineland - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I do think if France did sent 4-5 Divisions into the Rhineland the SECOND Hitler moved troops there the German Military would have taken him out.

 

[Dante]

I do think if France did sent 4-5 Divisions into the Rhineland the SECOND Hitler moved troops there the German Military would have taken him out.

really?

that's nuts

 

[martybegan]

really?

that's nuts

Germany sent 2-3 BATTALIONS over the bridges with bands playing, and ZERO heavy equipment. If France would have sent a few divisions to counter them, it would have been game over.

The Wehrmacht of the Rhineland episode wasn't the force you are thinking of from 1938-1939.

Even the difference between 38 and 39 was huge. People often don't realize how fast it all sprung up from essentially nothing, due to the efforts of prepping for it done by the 100k man Reichswehr to plan it out.

I recommend the book "To Lose a Battle" for further reference.

 

[mikegriffith1]

martybegan said:
I do think if France did sent 4-5 Divisions into the Rhineland the SECOND Hitler moved troops there the German Military would have taken him out.

really?

that's nuts

Actually, no, it's not "nuts" at all: you're just ignorant of basic WWII history. If anything is truly nuts, it's your surreal denial that Hitler planned on immediately pulling back his troops from the Rhineland if France responded forcefully and that France could have crushed Hitler's army at that point. In all my years of discussing WWII, you're the first person who has ever disputed these well-known, well-documented facts.

And instead of admitting your astonishing ignorance, you deflect and evade and pretend you did not horrendously blunder.

Dante:

the aggressive Nazi drive was not going to be checked for long.

you're all over the place Mister Peabdoy. France was incapable of acting.

Shirer? okie dokie

Hitler was not going to fall in 1936. It's all looking back BS.

So this is your dishonest, juvenile answer to having your amazing ignorance exposed? Let's take your doubling-down nonsense point by point:

the aggressive Nazi drive was not going to be checked for long.

LOL! Sheesh! Again, France could have crushed the German army in 1936. Nobody but you denies this. The quotes I provided earlier on this point are only a few of the tens of thousands that could be provided. Virtually every book ever written about WWII notes this fact.

And it is a matter of record that Hitler was quite scared that France would react forcefully to the Rhineland incursion, and that Hitler needed repeated reassurance and coaxing from Neurath to keep him from withdrawing the troops after he heard an unconfirmed report that French troops had entered Germany. Find me a scholarly discussion on the Rhineland incursion that does not mention these well-known facts. I dare you.

you're all over the place Mister Peabdoy. France was incapable of acting.

Read: More of your juvenile ducking and dodging, and another amazing gaffe.

France was "incapable" of acting??? You must be kidding. As I've documented, France's army at the time was far more powerful than Germany's army. Scholars universally recognize that France could have crushed Hitler at that point. Find me one scholar who says otherwise.

The problem was not that France could not act but that France's leadership was spineless and committed to a fatal policy of appeasement. It's amazing that I even have to explain this stuff to you. Again, this is WWII History 101 material.

Shirer? okie dokie

LOL! Uh, yes, Shirer. FYI, Shirer wrote one of the most highly acclaimed, best-selling books on the rise and fall of Nazi Germany ever written. So, yeah, Shirer.

Are you ever going to deign to share with us your sources for your silly, fringe revisionism? I mean, who are you, anyway? You comically describe yourself as a know-it-all, refer to yourself in the third person, and say "Dante has forgotten more about this subject than you've ever learned," and then you post utterly erroneous comments about basic facts that nobody but you denies.

Hitler was not going to fall in 1936. And this is all after the war. BS fed to the allies. It's all looking back BS.

This is clown material. Given your obvious ignorance of serious historical scholarship, you're in no position to be issuing such sweeping--not to mention laughably erroneous--pronouncements. We both know that you can't cite a single reputable scholarly source to back up your bizarre version of WWII history.

Yes, Hitler could have fallen in 1936 if France had responded forcefully and crushed Hitler's army after the Rhineland incursion began. You're the only one who says otherwise. (Well, actually, a few fringe, neo-Nazi writers likewise claim that Hitler was in no danger of falling in 1936. Congratulations.)

No, this was not "all after the war BS fed to the allies." What a comical, absurd comment. Do you have any idea who those generals were who provided some of this information? Do you? Are you aware that some of them made those comments when they did not know they were being recorded and were speaking among colleagues? Many of them despised Hitler and made those comments only to lament the chances that were missed to depose Hitler.

 

[Dante]

Germany sent 2-3 BATTALIONS over the bridges with bands playing, and ZERO heavy equipment. If France would have sent a few divisions to counter them, it would have been game over.

The Wehrmacht of the Rhineland episode wasn't the force you are thinking of from 1938-1939.

Even the difference between 38 and 39 was huge. People often don't realize how fast it all sprung up from essentially nothing, due to the efforts of prepping for it done by the 100k man Reichswehr to plan it out.

I recommend the book "To Lose a Battle" for further reference.

Game voer for that one instant. Hitler was not to be stopped. He had a long game plan and he would see it through.

everything is looking back - oh my!