Why did Britain go to War over Poland in 1939?

[martybegan]

Leaving aside Dante's amusing denials on this point, you are of course correct. We've known for decades now that there was a massive plot to kill Hitler in September 1938. The plot, known as the Oster Conspiracy or the September Conspiracy, involved numerous high-ranking military officers and civilian officials. It had an excellent chance of succeeding. However, when Chamberlain shamefully bowed to Hitler at Munich, the plot fell apart because Hitler's popularity soared and many of the plotters gave up on deposing Hitler.

No one who has done any serious research on WWII would get on a public board and claim "the military was not looking to 'depose' Hitler."

I think those plots have been exaggerated with time, but they did exist.

They weren't looking at it seriously until it was far too late is a better statement.

 

[Dante]

Well, of course it's "opinion"! And it happens to be the scholarly consensus.

I notice you snipped and ignored all the other citations.


That's not the point, and you know it. Nobody is arguing with those statements. I said nothing related to them. You're only making these statements to divert attention from your embarrassing gaffe.


Nonsense! France's army dwarfed the German army at that point. Hitler had just started conscription the year before. The Luftwaffe had only been formed the year before. Hitler's own generals warned him that the army was no match for France's army. What about all the citations I presented on this very point? You've ignored them and cherry-picked one lone statement.


Yeah, and that untrained, hastily thrown-together force would have been crushed by the French army if France's leaders had been willing to act. Hitler's ground force would have been virtually naked from the air, because his air force was just getting started. The French air force would have bombed Hitler's troops at will.



LOL! You must be kidding! My "original nonsense" stands unrefuted by your amateurish ignorance and your two outlier cherry-picked quotations. So you are still denying that France could have crushed the Germany army in March 1936 and still denying that Hitler gave orders that his troops were to immediately withdraw from the Rhineland if the French army responded to the incursion!

I mean, okay, no one can force you to acknowledge the documented fact and the scholarly consensus. Just be advised that you are rejecting the views of the vast majority of WWII scholars/historians. Again, you're the first person I've ever seen dispute this stuff.

And I see now you're attacking my perfectly factual statement that Hitler was hesitant about invading Poland. Sheesh, is there no end to your ignorance about basic WWII history?!

I know you seem to dislike mainstream WWII scholarship, but you might read Shirer's section on the invasion of Poland and how Hitler vacillated and fretted about whether to give final approval for the invasion. I mean, I don't understand how you can see this as controversial, much less as "nonsense."

You believe if you spam a post in the thread with more shit, that it passes a smell test

 

[Dante]

Leaving aside Dante's amusing denials on this point, you are of course correct. We've known for decades now that there was a massive plot to kill Hitler in September 1938. The plot, known as the Oster Conspiracy or the September Conspiracy, involved numerous high-ranking military officers and civilian officials. It had an excellent chance of succeeding. However, when Chamberlain shamefully bowed to Hitler at Munich, the plot fell apart because Hitler's popularity soared and many of the plotters gave up on deposing Hitler.

No one who has done any serious research on WWII would get on a public board and claim "the military was not looking to 'depose' Hitler."

I think those plots have been exaggerated with time, but they did exist.

They weren't looking at it seriously until it was far too late is a better statement.

 

[mikegriffith1]

I think those plots have been exaggerated with time, but they did exist. They weren't looking at it seriously until it was far too late is a better statement.

The September 1938 plot (the Oster Conspiracy) needs no exaggeration. It involved numerous high-ranking officers, including the chief of the Army General Staff, the head and deputy head of the Abwehr, and civilian officials, including Germany's Secretary of State. The head and deputy head of the Berlin police were also part of the plot, as were local troop commanders.

You might read Terry Parssinen's book The Oster Conspiracy of 1938. This was a serious, extensive, high-level plot that had an excellent chance of succeeding, until Chamberlain ruined it by kowtowing to Hitler at Munich.

Dante:

You believe if you spam a post in the thread with more BS, that it passes a smell test.

LOL! You are total clown. "Spam"? Shirer is "spam"? The U.S. Naval Institute Proceedings is "spam"? R. A. C. Parker is "spam"? David Carlin is "spam"? Dr. Hederson is "spam"? And on and on I could go. The only spam here is your amateurish blundering.

You've proved that you have no business talking about this subject, that you don't even know basic WWII history, and that you are unwilling to admit when you make an errant claim, especially an egregiously errant claim.

I'll just say again that there is wide agreement among scholars, and has been for decades, (1) that Hitler could have been stopped in 1936 if France had responded forcefully to his Rhineland occupation, (2) that France had a much more powerful army than Germany at that point, (3) that Hitler was very nervous about the Rhineland incursion and had to be constantly reassured by Neurath, and (4) that Hitler had ordered that if the French challenged the incursion, his troops were to withdraw immediately.

Points 2, 3, and 4 are documented facts that nobody disputes (well, except you and a handful of neo-Nazi "authors"). Point 1 is, of course, a conclusion, but it is a conclusion that has been widely accepted among scholars for decades, not to mention that it was shared by many German generals who lamented the lost opportunity after the war.

Your latest howler, that "the Military was not looking to 'depose' Hitler and that "the idea that Hitler would have been deposed is just plain nonsense," rivals the howlers that JoeB131 has posted. Such a gaffe proves you are not to be taken seriously and have no business posting in this thread.

 

[mikegriffith1]

The September 1938 plot (the Oster Conspiracy) needs no exaggeration. It involved numerous high-ranking officers, including the chief of the Army General Staff, the head and deputy head of the Abwehr, and civilian officials, including Germany's Secretary of State. The head and deputy head of the Berlin police were also part of the plot, as were local troop commanders.

You might read Terry Parssinen's book The Oster Conspiracy of 1938. This was a serious, extensive, high-level plot that had an excellent chance of succeeding, until Chamberlain ruined it by kowtowing to Hitler at Munich.



LOL! You are total clown. "Spam"? Shirer is "spam"? The U.S. Naval Institute Proceedings is "spam"? R. A. C. Parker is "spam"? David Carlin is "spam"? Dr. Hederson is "spam"? And on and on I could go. The only spam here is your amateurish blundering.

You've proved that you have no business talking about this subject, that you don't even know basic WWII history, and that you are unwilling to admit when you make an errant claim, especially an egregiously errant claim.

I'll just say again that there is wide agreement among scholars, and has been for decades, (1) that Hitler could have been stopped in 1936 if France had responded forcefully to his Rhineland occupation, (2) that France had a much more powerful army than Germany at that point, (3) that Hitler was very nervous about the Rhineland incursion and had to be constantly reassured by Neurath, and (4) that Hitler had ordered that if the French challenged the incursion, his troops were to withdraw immediately.

Points 2, 3, and 4 are documented facts that nobody disputes (well, except you and a handful of neo-Nazi "authors"). Point 1 is, of course, a conclusion, but it is a conclusion that has been widely accepted among scholars for decades, not to mention that it was shared by many German generals who lamented the lost opportunity after the war.

Your latest howler, that "the Military was not looking to 'depose' Hitler and that "the idea that Hitler would have been deposed is just plain nonsense," rivals the howlers that JoeB131 has posted. Such a gaffe proves you are not to be taken seriously and have no business posting in this thread.

Another good source on the Oster Conspiracy is Peter Hoffman's award-winning 1996 book The History of the German Resistance, 1933-1945. Over 800 pages in length, Hoffman's book is widely viewed as the definitive work on the subject.

Hoffman devotes a lengthy chapter to the Oster Conspiracy. In addition to the plotters whom I've already mentioned, Hoffman points out that General Von Witzleben, the commander of the III Army Corps/Military District III, crucially headquartered in Berlin, hated Hitler and agreed to join the plot as soon as he was asked.

Hoffman notes that another plotter was Major-General Walter Graf Von Brockdorff-Ahlefeldt, commander of the prestigious 23rd Infantry Division, which was headquartered in nearby Potsdam, barely 20 miles from Berlin.

Another plot member, and ardent Hitler hater, was Major-General Von Hase, commander of the 50th Infantry Regiment.

Another high-ranking plotter was none other than Admiral Canaris, the head of the Abwehr (German military intelligence).

There were many more high-ranking and influential plotters, but the above and my previous post on the topic should suffice to show that the Oster Conspiracy was a powerful plot.

Since the plotters included the head and deputy head of the Berlin police, they were assured the police would, at the very least, remain neutral and make no effort to save Hitler.

When numerous younger officers, including younger military intelligence officers, joined the Oster Conspiracy, "preparations were more thorough and prospects of success greater than at any subsequent period" (p. 93).

But, alas, as Hoffman notes, when Chamberlain shamefully kowtowed to Hitler at Munich, "the measures prepared" by the plotters "could not be carried out," and Chamberlain's disgraceful sellout "saved Hitler and his regime" (p. 96).

One of the plotters, Hans Bernd Gisevius, a Gestapo and Abwehr officer, bitterly denounced Chamberlain's betrayal after the war, saying,

"'Peace in our time'? Let us put it a bit more realistically. Chamberlain saved Hitler." (Terry Parssinen, The Oster Conspiracy of 1938, Harper Collins, 2003, pp. 219-220)

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

Mike considers himself the academic source for his claims.

He is attempting with some failure to make a name for himself by taking the minority (at times 'conspiracy') position on subjects.

It is fun to read his 'what if' scenarios, it clarifies the main lines of discussion by highlighting the absurd, and it fulfills his opinion of himself.

He proves the Catholic point that one can learn as much or more from error than success.

 

[mikegriffith1]

Mike considers himself the academic source for his claims.

This is just goofy. Unlike you, I cite academic sources all the time, as I've done repeatedly in this thread.

He is attempting with some failure to make a name for himself by taking the minority (at times 'conspiracy') position on subjects.

Huh? Uh, I'm taking the majority position on Hitler's Rhineland occupation and on the seriousness of the September 1936 plot to remove Hitler.

It is fun to read his 'what if' scenarios, it clarifies the main lines of discussion by highlighting the absurd, and it fulfills his opinion of himself. He proves the Catholic point that one can learn as much or more from error than success.

More goofiness. It's not my "what if? scenario." We're talking about the well-known fact that if France had responded forcefully to Hitler's Rhineland incursion, Hitler would have pulled back and could have been crushed by the French army at that point. What do you have to say about all the scholarly statements that I've quoted on these points?

No one denies that Hitler's orders included the order that his troops were to immediately pull back if France responded forcefully.

We're also talking about the well-documented evidence that the Oster Conspiracy, the 1936 plot to overthrow Hitler, was serious and extensive and had a great chance of succeeding until Chamberlain kowtowed to Hitler at Munich. You might want to read my two previous replies.

It is just so odd that you get on a public board and challenge facts that have been well established and acknowledged for decades. Basically, if I say the sky is blue and cite a bunch of academic sources in support, you proclaim that the sky is gray, claim that I have "failed," and offer no documentation to back up your posturing. It is just strange.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

Mike, you simply are not all that.

But you are fun to read and point out to my history friends in academia.

You have very little support, so continue on.

I do like your Turtledoving.

 

[mikegriffith1]

Mike, you simply are not all that. But you are fun to read and point out to my history friends in academia. You have very little support, so continue on. I do like your Turtledoving.

In other words, as usual, you are not even going to try to challenge the evidence I've presented but are just going to keep claiming that I'm wrong, that I failed, that I have very little support, etc., etc.

And, actually, on the issues under discussion (the Rhineland occupation and the 1936 plot to remove Hitler), I have a great deal of scholarly support and am presenting the consensus view on those issues.

Can you cite a single scholar who disputes the fact (1) that Hitler ordered his troops to immediately withdraw if France responded forcefully, (2) that Hitler was on the verge of recalling his troops because he was so worried about French intervention and had to be constantly reassured by Neurath, (3) that France's army was much larger and more powerful than Germany's army at the time, (4) that France's failure to respond to the Rhineland incursion is widely regarded as the last chance to stop Hitler with minimal trouble, and (5) that the Oster Conspiracy was extensive, high-level, and had a good chance of succeeding until Chamberlain kowtowed to Hitler at Munich?

We've done this dance before, and I suspect you will continue to refuse to offer any evidence to support your summary denials and dismissals. But, it's worth putting your evasion on the record.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

You are gaslighting, Mike, and you Turtledove with the best of them.

 

[Deadstick]

Well, this is complicated. Germany actually had a valid point about the Danzig Corridor. And, yes, Chamberlain's security guarantee to Poland was a disaster (1) because it was worthless, (2) because it encouraged the Poles to reject what was actually a reasonable German offer on the corridor, and (3) because it prematurely, and perhaps needlessly, dragged Western Europe into what may have remained an Eastern European war.

England and France could and should have reacted swiftly and harshly when Hitler marched troops into the Rhineland in March 1936, especially France. France alone had a much bigger army than did Germany at the time. Plus, we've known for years that Hitler was terrified that the French would launch a punitive attack if he marched troops into the Rhineland. When Hitler merely heard an unconfirmed report that the French had moved into German territory just after the first German troops entered the Rhineland, he nearly called off the incursion but was talked out of it by Neurath.

Another thing: Just before Chamberlain kowtowed to Hitler at Munich, there was a massive German resistance conspiracy to kill Hitler. The plot involved numerous high-ranking officers and civilian officials. It had an excellent chance of succeeding. But, when Chamberlain spinelessly handed over Czechoslovakia to Hitler at Munich, Hitler's popularity sky-rocketed and many members of the resistance dropped out and stopped opposing Hitler.

Some believe Chamberlain was sympathetic to the Nazis, there were certainly quite a few in the ruling class who were and wanted to come to an understanding with Hitler, Churchill was not having it he could see what a threat the Nazis were, Hitler could have been crushed years before the war he was not supposed to have an airforce and other weapons but was allowed to build up armed forces, my theory is it was all about money again some people had financial interests in Companies like Krupp and I G Farben so they turned a blind eye and we know how that worked out, Hitler was also active in the Spanish civil war when he sent the Condor legion, all signs were there for the gathering storm.

 

[Deadstick]

IF Stalin would have stuck with Britian and France and not Germany Hitler would not have gone to war in Sept 1939.

Stalin wanted to but those Western Countries like Britain and france wouldn't sign up to an anti German/Nazi pact, thats why Stalin signed that pact with the Germans to buy time.

 

[mikegriffith1]

Some believe Chamberlain was sympathetic to the Nazis, there were certainly quite a few in the ruling class who were and wanted to come to an understanding with Hitler, Churchill was not having it he could see what a threat the Nazis were, Hitler could have been crushed years before the war he was not supposed to have an airforce and other weapons but was allowed to build up armed forces, my theory is it was all about money again some people had financial interests in Companies like Krupp and I G Farben so they turned a blind eye and we know how that worked out, Hitler was also active in the Spanish civil war when he sent the Condor legion, all signs were there for the gathering storm.

Yes, it's just a tragedy that France and England did not intervene when Hitler first began his arms buildup after coming to power in 1933. Their leaders felt guilty over the excessively harsh terms of the Versailles Treaty, but they took their understandable guilt too far. Hitler's move into the Rhineland in 1936 was the last chance the Allies had to crush Hitler with minimal effort.

Hitler's armed forces grew massively in 1937. By 1938, Hitler's armed forces, including the Luftwaffe, were formidable. Any intervention from 1938 onward would have been costly.

It remains an open question as to whether Hitler would have left France and England/Western Europe alone if they had made a deal with him in 1939 or before. Hitler may have confined his aggression to the East as long as France and England remained neutral.

 

[Deadstick]

Yes, it's just a tragedy that France and England did not intervene when Hitler first began his arms buildup after coming to power in 1933. Their leaders felt guilty over the excessively harsh terms of the Versailles Treaty, but they took their understandable guilt too far. Hitler's move into the Rhineland in 1936 was the last chance the Allies had to crush Hitler with minimal effort.

Hitler's armed forces grew massively in 1937. By 1938, Hitler's armed forces, including the Luftwaffe, were formidable. Any intervention from 1938 onward would have been costly.

It remains an open question as to whether Hitler would have left France and England/Western Europe alone if they had made a deal with him in 1939 or before. Hitler may have confined his aggression to the East as long as France and England remained neutral.

Well thats the way i see it,the Luftwaffe were not supposed to have anything bigger than a Glider after WW2, like most wars it comes down to money.

 

[mikegriffith1]

Well thats the way i see it,the Luftwaffe were not supposed to have anything bigger than a Glider after WW2, like most wars it comes down to money.

Well thats the way i see it,the Luftwaffe were not supposed to have anything bigger than a Glider after WW2, like most wars it comes down to money.

The problem was that the Versailles Treaty was absurdly draconian. It was unfair and unrealistic to expect that a country as large as Germany would forever accept having a tiny, toothless military, especially with the Soviet Union rising in the East. If the Allies had not imposed such an unfair, overly harsh peace deal on Germany in the first place, it is highly unlikely that Hitler would have ever come to power because the conditions that enabled his ascendancy would not have existed.

The Allies should have ensured that the Weimar Republic survived.

 

[JoeB131]

I think we need to rename Mike Griffith as "Axis Mikey". He seems really sad the Axis lost the war.

Well, this is complicated. Germany actually had a valid point about the Danzig Corridor. And, yes, Chamberlain's security guarantee to Poland was a disaster (1) because it was worthless, (2) because it encouraged the Poles to reject what was actually a reasonable German offer on the corridor, and (3) because it prematurely, and perhaps needlessly, dragged Western Europe into what may have remained an Eastern European war.

Wow, seriously, Mike? Here's the problem with that thinking. You leave out Czechoslovakia and Munich. At Munich, Hitler said he only wanted the Sudetenland. Instead, he proceeded to dismember the entire country, giving a huge chunk of it to Hungary to appease Admiral Horthy (another guy who should have ended up on a rope and didn't) spinning of Slovakia under corrupt Catholic priest Jozef Tizo (who did end up at the end of a rope, in his vestments!) and turning Bohemia into a protectorate.

So you can imagine that when Chamberlain heard HItler saying that "He Just wanted Danzig" and took that with a grain of salt.

England and France could and should have reacted swiftly and harshly when Hitler marched troops into the Rhineland in March 1936, especially France. France alone had a much bigger army than did Germany at the time. Plus, we've known for years that Hitler was terrified that the French would launch a punitive attack if he marched troops into the Rhineland. When Hitler merely heard an unconfirmed report that the French had moved into German territory just after the first German troops entered the Rhineland, he nearly called off the incursion but was talked out of it by Neurath.

Ah, you forget WHY the Western allies tolerated Hitler and Mussolini for so long, buddy. They saw them as a foil to Stalin. You see, the West was far more afraid of Stalin than Hitler. Stalin was promoting that scary Communism stuff, where they were threatening to redistribute the wealth fairly (GASP!)

Remember what the original name of the Axis was.. the "Anti-Comintern Pact". So Germany could annex Austria and Czechoslovakia, Italy could annex Albania and Ethiopia, and Japan could engage in a ruthless genocidal war in China, and the west was all like, "Well, at least they aren't damned commies threatening to take away our mansions!!!!"

Then when Stalin cut deals with the Axis powers to get in on some of that sweet, sweet, land acquisition, suddenly, the West got off it's ass. Kind of. They still spent six months of the war hoping Stalin and Hitler would turn on each other before turning west.

Another thing: Just before Chamberlain kowtowed to Hitler at Munich, there was a massive German resistance conspiracy to kill Hitler. The plot involved numerous high-ranking officers and civilian officials. It had an excellent chance of succeeding. But, when Chamberlain spinelessly handed over Czechoslovakia to Hitler at Munich, Hitler's popularity sky-rocketed and many members of the resistance dropped out and stopped opposing Hitler.

The resistance was hardly "massive", guy. It was General Beck stomping his feet over an invasion he didn't think he could pull off.

Here's the ugly truth. The "Good Germans" never showed up. They supported Hitler literally to the bitter end.

 

[JoeB131]

The problem was that the Versailles Treaty was absurdly draconian. It was unfair and unrealistic to expect that a country as large as Germany would forever accept having a tiny, toothless military, especially with the Soviet Union rising in the East. If the Allies had not imposed such an unfair, overly harsh peace deal on Germany in the first place, it is highly unlikely that Hitler would have ever come to power because the conditions that enabled his ascendancy would not have existed.

The Allies should have ensured that the Weimar Republic survived.

Axis Mikey strikes again.

The Allies did all they could to prop up the corrupt Weimar Regime, including pumping money into it up until the Great Depression where everyone was out of money.

 

[JoeB131]

Mike considers himself the academic source for his claims.

He is attempting with some failure to make a name for himself by taking the minority (at times 'conspiracy') position on subjects.

It is fun to read his 'what if' scenarios, it clarifies the main lines of discussion by highlighting the absurd, and it fulfills his opinion of himself.

He proves the Catholic point that one can learn as much or more from error than success.

Mormon Mike thinks he's a real historian, but runs down published historians like Iris Chang.

Meanwhile, he posts his manifestos on line and half the links don't work.

 

[JoeB131]

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.

Except the French weren't in a position to invade Germany. France had invested all her military capital into the Maginot Line and defensive measures.

Again- keep in mind the key thing before 1939. The West was far more afraid of Stalin than they were of Hitler, Mussolini, or the Japanese Generals.

At least until the Axis started threatening to take their stuff instead.

 

[Unkotare]

Mormon Mike thinks he's a real historian, but runs down published historians like Iris Chang.

...

Wrong thread.