Why did Britain go to War over Poland in 1939?

[gipper]

I admit. It's all a conspiracy. In fact, you aren't even a real person, you are a brain in a jar being fed impulses so a mad scientist can study you. Shhh... don't tell them I broke the study protocol.

That’s the problem with statists. You’ve accepted the lies as truth. So the truth is completely alien to you and dutifully refer to it as conspiracy theory.

 

[JoeB131]

That’s the problem with statists. You’ve accepted the lies as truth. So the truth is completely alien to you and dutifully refer to it as conspiracy theory.

You give the state far too much credit.

Are you really saying that anyone thought Hitler would be happy with just Danzig?

 

[gipper]

You give the state far too much credit.

Are you really saying that anyone thought Hitler would be happy with just Danzig?

As is well known by those of us informed, he intended to take out the USSR. He wanted nothing to do with Britain and France. He knew a two front war couldn’t be won. Even after taking Western Europe, he tried repeatedly to obtain peace with the UK.

If we had quality leadership in the US and UK at the time, the war would have been limited to Germany and the USSR.

 

[AZrailwhale]

Germany was in the right.
WWI was started by the Allies illegally assassinating Archduke Ferdinand and his wife, and then invading southern Germany.
The Allies made Germany surrender by illegally killing millions of civilians with a starvation blockade that violates the Geneva Conventions.
The Treaty of Versailles was illegal because it stole about half of Germany illegally.

Archduke Ferdinand was assassinated by a Serbian anarchist. What responsibility did the Triple Entante have for his actions? Serbia was part of the Austro-Hungarian Empire at the time.

 

[JoeB131]

As is well known by those of us informed, he intended to take out the USSR. He wanted nothing to do with Britain and France. He knew a two front war couldn’t be won. Even after taking Western Europe, he tried repeatedly to obtain peace with the UK.

If we had quality leadership in the US and UK at the time, the war would have been limited to Germany and the USSR.

Why would that be quality leadership?

There is a school of thought that Chamberlain was trying to play Hitler and Stalin off against each other. I doubt it was anything that sinister, I think it was more that he saw Czechoslovakia as undefendable and was guilted into backing Poland when it wasn't defendable, either.

His fecklessness actually drove countries that were on the fence to signing up with Hitler. Not only the countries that would eventually make up the Axis, but for a time, Stalin wanted in on the sweet Axis Action. So did Chi'ang Kai-shek, but Hitler thought the Japanese would be more useful as allies.

 

[JoeB131]

Archduke Ferdinand was assassinated by a Serbian anarchist. What responsibility did the Triple Entante have for his actions? Serbia was part of the Austro-Hungarian Empire at the time.

Actually, Serbia wasn't part of the A-H Empire at that time.

Bosnia was when the Ottomans surrendered all their rights to the Habsburgs.

Where the Entente screwed up was letting the situation escalate beyond a war between AH and Serbia. Particlarly the Russians, who were backing them no matter what they did.

 

[Mushroom]

Archduke Ferdinand was assassinated by a Serbian anarchist. What responsibility did the Triple Entante have for his actions? Serbia was part of the Austro-Hungarian Empire at the time.

Shhh, don't confused the simple minded with "facts".

Oh, and Germany did not "surrender" at the end of WWI. And somehow, starvation from a blockade of England is allowable, but the same thing against Germany is bad?

Oh, and blockades are not against the Geneva Convention. So long as the ships trying to transit declare they are transporting only humanitarian aid intended for civilians and not for military purposes. So exactly how many such shipments did the Allied Powers sink or refuse?

Oh, wait a minute. That actually does not even apply as that rule was not adopted until Convention IV in 1949. So never mind, it was not a factor at all during WWI.

You gotta love how people will make claims on the "Geneva Convention", and not even bother to look it up. For example, the unrestricted submarine warfare itself is not against the convention. So long as they warn the civilian ship they are going to sink it and give the crew time to take to the lifeboats first.

They are even allowed to sink ships of neutral nations. Perfectly allowed. However, that then has the very real risk of pissing off those nations and having them declare war against them. Like the United States.

 

[gipper]

Why would that be quality leadership?

There is a school of thought that Chamberlain was trying to play Hitler and Stalin off against each other. I doubt it was anything that sinister, I think it was more that he saw Czechoslovakia as undefendable and was guilted into backing Poland when it wasn't defendable, either.

His fecklessness actually drove countries that were on the fence to signing up with Hitler. Not only the countries that would eventually make up the Axis, but for a time, Stalin wanted in on the sweet Axis Action. So did Chi'ang Kai-shek, but Hitler thought the Japanese would be more useful as allies.

Why? Lol. Is that not a dumb question? Or do you prefer young American boys dying in war?

FDR had been putting tremendous pressure on the UK and Poland not to negotiate with Hitler. He needed war because his economic policies had failed at home.

It’s well known that Hitler held no ill will for the UK. He tried repeatedly for favorable relations.

It seems likely Hitler was set up by the wealthy western bankers, who were very happy to support his war machine.

 

[JoeB131]

Why? Lol. Is that not a dumb question? Or do you prefer young American boys dying in war?

FDR had been putting tremendous pressure on the UK and Poland not to negotiate with Hitler. He needed war because his economic policies had failed at home.

FDR didn't have to put pressure.

Hitler completely screwing Chamberlain at Munich was enough to do that.

It’s well known that Hitler held no ill will for the UK. He tried repeatedly for favorable relations.

I'm sure he did. The monster never looks in the mirror and sees a monster.

It seems likely Hitler was set up by the wealthy western bankers, who were very happy to support his war machine.

Again, completely true. A lot of people in the west thought they could work with Hitler and Mussolini, because they were more scared of Stalin shooting rich people.

 

[gipper]

FDR didn't have to put pressure.

Hitler completely screwing Chamberlain at Munich was enough to do that.



I'm sure he did. The monster never looks in the mirror and sees a monster.



Again, completely true. A lot of people in the west thought they could work with Hitler and Mussolini, because they were more scared of Stalin shooting rich people.

FDR didn’t have to pressure Poland and the UK to refuse peaceful negotiations with Germany, but he did.

The wealthy bankers wanted war. They screwed Chamberlain. Putting in the bankrupt easily blackmailed Churchill, to make sure they’d get their war.

Hitler didn’t screw Chamberlain. Hitler never wanted war with the UK. This is well known and documented.

 

[JoeB131]

FDR didn’t have to pressure Poland and the UK to refuse peaceful negotiations with Germany, but he did.

Link?

The wealthy bankers wanted war. They screwed Chamberlain. Putting in the bankrupt easily blackmailed Churchill, to make sure they’d get their war.

Except that the war broke out before Churchill replaced the feckless Chamberlain. Chamberlain was forced to resign because he was the idiot who came up with the idea to occupy Norway, only to have Hitler beat him to it. And whoops, Denmark just got in the way.

Hitler didn’t screw Chamberlain. Hitler never wanted war with the UK. This is well known and documented.

Sure he did. Chamberlain came back with a piece of paper and declared "Peace in our Time". Then he looked like a complete jackass when Hitler proceeded to chop up what was left of Czechoslovakia and started saber-rattling about a war with Poland.

 

[gipper]

Link?



Except that the war broke out before Churchill replaced the feckless Chamberlain. Chamberlain was forced to resign because he was the idiot who came up with the idea to occupy Norway, only to have Hitler beat him to it. And whoops, Denmark just got in the way.




Sure he did. Chamberlain came back with a piece of paper and declared "Peace in our Time". Then he looked like a complete jackass when Hitler proceeded to chop up what was left of Czechoslovakia and started saber-rattling about a war with Poland.

Unz has a good column here. The True History of World War II
You might read his entire series on WWII. Every well documented, showing the narrative the state professes about WWII is mostly fiction.

It doesn’t matter when Chamberlain resigned.

Had the UK and France not had that ridiculous pact with Poland, WWII might have been avoided.

Have you asked yourself why they didn’t also declare war on the USSR too? Rather strange that they didn’t. Had they bombed Stalin’s oil fields as was considered, the war might have been very different.

 

[JoeB131]

Unz has a good column here. The True History of World War II
You might read his entire series on WWII. Every well documented, showing the narrative the state professes about WWII is mostly fiction.

It doesn’t matter when Chamberlain resigned.

Had the UK and France not had that ridiculous pact with Poland, WWII might have been avoided.

Have you asked yourself why they didn’t also declare war on the USSR too? Rather strange that they didn’t. Had they bombed Stalin’s oil fields as was considered, the war might have been very different.

Wow, a long ranting loon post, most of it about Ukraine.

Yes, when Chamberlain resigned and why is pretty important in debunking your narrative.

Uh, they really didn't have the Capacity to bomb Russia's oil fields.

I suspect the reason they didn't declare war on Russia was that it would have opened up a war on many other fronts (Manchuria, Iran, India)

Now, I would agree that the alliance with Poland was probably foolish, given that they had no way to back it up. But it would have been even more ridiculous to think Hitler wouldn't have done to Poland exactly what he did to Czechoslovakia.

Revenge on France for WWI was a major part of Hitler's agenda. Sacrificing Poland would not have saved France.

 

[gipper]

Wow, a long ranting loon post, most of it about Ukraine.

Yes, when Chamberlain resigned and why is pretty important in debunking your narrative.

Uh, they really didn't have the Capacity to bomb Russia's oil fields.

I suspect the reason they didn't declare war on Russia was that it would have opened up a war on many other fronts (Manchuria, Iran, India)

Now, I would agree that the alliance with Poland was probably foolish, given that they had no way to back it up. But it would have been even more ridiculous to think Hitler wouldn't have done to Poland exactly what he did to Czechoslovakia.

Revenge on France for WWI was a major part of Hitler's agenda. Sacrificing Poland would not have saved France.

No. You failed to read the column. Very little about Ukraine.

Come back when you get informed.

 

[JoeB131]

No. You failed to read the column. Very little about Ukraine.

Come back when you get informed.

um, he talks about Ukraine for the first six or seven paragraphs.

Then he floats the usual loon theories from people who are sorry Hitler didn't win the war.

 

[gipper]

um, he talks about Ukraine for the first six or seven paragraphs.

Then he floats the usual loon theories from people who are sorry Hitler didn't win the war.

Lol. He cites legitimate sources. Something you failed to do.

 

[JoeB131]

Lol. He cites legitimate sources. Something you failed to do.

The guy is a crank.

 

[gipper]

The guy is a crank.

You are a crank.

 

[JoeB131]

You are a crank.

Um, no, guy, I hold the standard historical view about Chamberlain and the origins of WWII.

Unlike guys who claim the Bankers started it.