Historum - History Forums  

Go Back   Historum - History Forums > World History Forum > American History
Register Forums Blogs Social Groups Mark Forums Read

American History American History Forum - United States, Canada, Mexico, Central and South America


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old December 11th, 2012, 06:39 AM   #21

diddyriddick's Avatar
Forum Curmudgeon
 
Joined: May 2009
From: A tiny hamlet in the Carolina Sandhills
Posts: 14,101

Quote:
Originally Posted by Yankee View Post
I am just curious as to why it is acceptable for Germany to invade Poland?
There is some truth in your opponent's views-Danzig was largely German. Anti-Germanism (?) wouldn't surprise me in the least. But we also know beyond any doubt that Germany broke treaty agreements in invading Poland. We also know beyond doubt that Hitler spelled out in Mein Kampf that Germany need Lebensraum (living space) in the east-the implication being that he would take it if he came to power. If you check the maps, moving east from Germany could only mean one thing-Poland, at least initially. And finally, we know beyond doubt that the pretext for war (The Gleiwitz radio station incident) was orchestrated by the SS with Jewish captives-it was a sham.

So the answer is no. Hitler was not justified.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Yankee View Post
Whatever about Pearl Harbor, did FDR orchestrate the entire war?
There are people who believe this. But there are also people who still believe that the earth is flat. If you wish to learn about this, I would recommend At Dawn We Slept by Gordon Prange. It is the most comprehensive single volume that I've seen on PH, and he has a specific chapter that convincingly refutes the revisionists. If you wish for balance, also read any of the myriad of Roosevelt-wanted-war-so-he maneuvered-Japan-into-attacking books. If you want a Reader's Digest version, there are multiple threads here on historum that argue the pros and cons.

http://www.historum.com/american-his...or-happen.html

Quote:
Originally Posted by Yankee View Post
I find it hard to believe, d. bag though he was.
Calling a historical figure a "d. bag," particularly one who is revered by so many, reflects more on you than it does on that person. But if you still insist on such behavior, please take it elsewhere; this is a history forum, not a name-calling forum.
diddyriddick is offline  
Remove Ads
Old December 11th, 2012, 06:42 AM   #22

diddyriddick's Avatar
Forum Curmudgeon
 
Joined: May 2009
From: A tiny hamlet in the Carolina Sandhills
Posts: 14,101

Quote:
Originally Posted by Yankee View Post
Partially I get so confused as to way American Catholics find the Confederacy and the Nazis to be so moral.
Either provide firm evidence that American Catholics were pro Confederacy or pro Nazi or don't post it. It is demeaning to an entire class of people.
diddyriddick is offline  
Old December 11th, 2012, 07:10 AM   #23

Ancientgeezer's Avatar
Revisionist
 
Joined: Nov 2011
From: The Dustbin, formerly, Garden of England
Posts: 5,238

The USA was a liberal democracy (for want of a better term).
In 1938 there were twenty-seven such countries in the world of which six were English-speaking countries. By 1940 there were just four left in Europe.
There were five power centres in the world, Germany-the USSR-the British Empire, Japan and the USA. Ultimately, the USA had to compete with one or all of them on the world stage politically, militarily and economically. FDR had the choice of sitting back and letting them slug it out and then facing the final victor or joining with most suitable partners to eliminate the most unsuitable rival.
It might be argued that the USSR was the most unsuitable rival, but that country did not pose an existential threat to the USA or the British Empire until well into the 1960s, whereas the Axis powers already posed one.
Ancientgeezer is offline  
Old December 11th, 2012, 07:14 AM   #24
Citizen
 
Joined: Jan 2012
Posts: 5

I'm suprised a topic like this is not being more activly discussed as it is a truly interesting topic in regards to the course of WWII and the intricacies in both the end of the pre-war mentalities and the introduction of warlike mentalities because honestly Poland is where it starts.

To understand the stance of the Polish to the questions you posed would require much more historical background than most would credit it with. Poland did indeed refuse on many account to discuss topics of land secession with any power. This is a country that cessed to exsist on more than one occasion through the great power partitions of previous generations. These partitions consisted of Russia, Germany and Austria/Hungry taking more and more land until they finally decided to attempt and quash the Polish culture in its entirty. With this in mind it seems that Poland can hardly be to blame for being overly cautious when dealing with these very same powers. Poland had also just finished a war with Russia a few years prior and this was at the re-birth of thier nation. The Polish spirit was definantly on the defensive during these years.

Anti-German sentiment is to be expected in these circumstances and the free city of Danzig was certaintly a spot where this might have been shown, being located in the Polish corridor. A problem that arises much later in the war is the Polish constitution that stated no portion of the country of Poland could be ceceded and no changing of Polish borders could be accomplished without the popular support of the people and at the conclusion of a vote. This further tied the hands of the Polish in regards to any question about giving the free city of Danzig back to the Germans, aside from the strategic loss of their only sea access if Danzig had been given and Eastern Prussia was rejoined with Germany.

Other than that, there were many aspects of the treaties ending WWI that seem to contradict the goals or at least stated goals of the allied powers. Austria had attemed to be annexed into Germany with popular support and was denied. Alsac and Lorraine were both re-taken from Germany and the right for a popular vote regarding which country they should be apart of was denied.

Finally, while FDR is indeed a revered figure, he is known for being a bit more than shady when dealing with the Polish. Both before and after the American involvement in the war. Then again, so was good old Winston but this seems to be a bit off topic.

Overall though, it was unacceptable for Germany to invade Poland but it was expected both because of obvious strategic goals and because of the history of the Polish people in regards the Germany.

Last edited by Trusted; December 11th, 2012 at 07:21 AM.
Trusted is offline  
Old December 11th, 2012, 07:25 AM   #25

Yankee's Avatar
Scholar
 
Joined: Mar 2012
From: Baltimore, Maryland
Posts: 567

Quote:
Originally Posted by diddyriddick View Post
Either provide firm evidence that American Catholics were pro Confederacy or pro Nazi or don't post it. It is demeaning to an entire class of people.
I think you're being very picky here. Let me rephrase, The American "trad" Catholics that I have been in contact with, side with the Nazis and the Confederacy and will not acknowledge the slights faults of either. And they take no umbrage at being lumped together.

I'm also fine with my name calling of FDR reflecting on me. If it is against forum rules, I'll stop but it doesn't bother me in the least that people know what I think of him and how that reflects on me.
Yankee is offline  
Old December 11th, 2012, 07:28 AM   #26

Clemmie's Avatar
Ye olde librarian
 
Joined: Oct 2010
From: Florida
Posts: 3,487

Quote:
Originally Posted by Yankee View Post
I think you're being very picky here. Let me rephrase, The American "trad" Catholics that I have been in contact with, side with the Nazis and the Confederacy and will not acknowledge the slights faults of either. And they take no umbrage at being lumped together.

I'm also fine with my name calling of FDR reflecting on me. If it is against forum rules, I'll stop but it doesn't bother me in the least that people know what I think of him and how that reflects on me.
While I don't dispute that you know some Catholics who are proNazi (proConfederacy is not germaine to this topic), it would be wrong to attribute these feelings to all American Catholics. And no, Diddy wasn't being picky. If I were a Catholic, I would consider it an insult to be called proNazi.

On the other hand, the church was criticized for its relations with Nazi Germany.

You can read more here:

Catholic_Church_and_Nazi_Germany Catholic_Church_and_Nazi_Germany
Clemmie is offline  
Old December 11th, 2012, 07:29 AM   #27

Yankee's Avatar
Scholar
 
Joined: Mar 2012
From: Baltimore, Maryland
Posts: 567

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trusted View Post
I'm suprised a topic like this is not being more activly discussed as it is a truly interesting topic in regards to the course of WWII and the intricacies in both the end of the pre-war mentalities and the introduction of warlike mentalities because honestly Poland is where it starts.

To understand the stance of the Polish to the questions you posed would require much more historical background than most would credit it with. Poland did indeed refuse on many account to discuss topics of land secession with any power. This is a country that cessed to exsist on more than one occasion through the great power partitions of previous generations. These partitions consisted of Russia, Germany and Austria/Hungry taking more and more land until they finally decided to attempt and quash the Polish culture in its entirty. With this in mind it seems that Poland can hardly be to blame for being overly cautious when dealing with these very same powers. Poland had also just finished a war with Russia a few years prior and this was at the re-birth of thier nation. The Polish spirit was definantly on the defensive during these years.

Anti-German sentiment is to be expected in these circumstances and the free city of Danzig was certaintly a spot where this might have been shown, being located in the Polish corridor. A problem that arises much later in the war is the Polish constitution that stated no portion of the country of Poland could be ceceded and no changing of Polish borders could be accomplished without the popular support of the people and at the conclusion of a vote. This further tied the hands of the Polish in regards to any question about giving the free city of Danzig back to the Germans, aside from the strategic loss of their only sea access if Danzig had been given and Eastern Prussia was rejoined with Germany.

Other than that, there were many aspects of the treaties ending WWI that seem to contradict the goals or at least stated goals of the allied powers. Austria had attemed to be annexed into Germany with popular support and was denied. Alsac and Lorraine were both re-taken from Germany and the right for a popular vote regarding which country they should be apart of was denied.

Finally, while FDR is indeed a revered figure, he is known for being a bit more than shady when dealing with the Polish. Both before and after the American involvement in the war. Then again, so was good old Winston but this seems to be a bit off topic.

Overall though, it was unacceptable for Germany to invade Poland but it was expected both because of obvious strategic goals and because of the history of the Polish people in regards the Germany.
This is an excellent answer. Thank you. I wonder, why shold Poland give up its land to Germany? It's Polish land. If the Germans were unhappy, why didn't they leave? These racial tensions are deep and go for centuries. Poland is suppose to "get over it" and cough up land?

I love German people. America is mostly German, but I also love Poland. I'm trying to look at this with an impartial eye. I can't see how Poland is wrong. If Poland gives into German, what will Russia do? Perhaps expect the same.
Yankee is offline  
Old December 11th, 2012, 07:46 AM   #28
Citizen
 
Joined: Jan 2012
Posts: 5

Quote:
Originally Posted by Yankee View Post
This is an excellent answer. Thank you. I wonder, why shold Poland give up its land to Germany? It's Polish land. If the Germans were unhappy, why didn't they leave? These racial tensions are deep and go for centuries. Poland is suppose to "get over it" and cough up land?

I love German people. America is mostly German, but I also love Poland. I'm trying to look at this with an impartial eye. I can't see how Poland is wrong. If Poland gives into German, what will Russia do? Perhaps expect the same.
It has a little more depth than that. I believe the conflict that the French and Germans had regarding Lorraine runs parallel to this thought we have here. Over time Lorraine became more German than it did French and then vice versa. Now, since so much time has passed, it would be insane to attribute this land back to Germany but at the same time, it was at a time occupied by German citizens living there. Now when we look at polish, very few years had passed and land that had very little polish identity for decades is now in the possession of Poland. Of course Germany had some claim to these lands at the time, but again these lands were Polish long ago.

Another place that resembles this dynamic would be Israel and the land of Judea. People are going to have extreme attachments to land that was once theirs, even if it had been hundreds of years since they had settled on it.

So it is not an insane or illogical idea that Germany wanted the Polish corridor and more precisely the free city of Danzig. (Also if i'm not mistaken I believe they merely wanted a highway connected the free city of danzig with both Germany and East Prussia without any limited access). It is an extremely convoluted and difficult question to anwser.

If you like Poland I have more than a few written accounts on thier extensive accomplishments in WWII. They really were given the short end of the stick and sold to Stalin for Greek freedom at the conclusion of WWII.

Russia does attempt to take Polish land shortly before WWII although it does fail. Towards the end of WWII they even set up thier own occupied Polish government in an attempt, a successful attempt rather, at taking power in Poland away from democrats and giving it to thier socialist puppets instead. So Russia was definantly an enemy of Poland, no matter which way you look at it.

Last edited by Trusted; December 11th, 2012 at 07:52 AM.
Trusted is offline  
Old December 11th, 2012, 07:46 AM   #29
Scholar
 
Joined: May 2012
Posts: 892

Quote:
Originally Posted by Yankee View Post
I don't like Hitler- AT ALL. But Stalin was worse. He had many more people put to death.
While I hardly think Stalin was a wonderful guy, and am not at all a fan of the totalitarian system he presided over, I don't agree that Stalin was worse than Hitler. It's not at all clear that Stalin had more people killed than Hitler did. Those who say that usually rely on figures of tens of millions for the number killed by Stalin that are highly questionable and seem to be based more on emotions and political agendas than hard fact.

And when calculating how much death Hitler was responsible for, you can't "just" look at the number he had murdered, you also have to factor in WWII, in which tens of millions died. Given that Hitler was the chief initiator of the European part of that war, he's entitled to most of the blame for the deaths that ensued.

Moreover, there's also the issue of intent. Most people consider Hitler "worse" because they don't just look at the number of deaths, they look at the fact that millions of the deaths Hitler caused were because of the Holocaust--a systematic, premeditated, organized genocide. This is widely seen as particularly morally heinous. However many deaths Stalin caused, he does not appear to have attempted to kill a whole group simply for what they were born as.
Olustee is offline  
Old December 11th, 2012, 07:50 AM   #30

Yankee's Avatar
Scholar
 
Joined: Mar 2012
From: Baltimore, Maryland
Posts: 567

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trusted View Post
It has a little more depth than that. I believe the conflict that the French and Germans had regarding Lorraine runs parallel to this thought we have here. Over time Lorraine became more German than it did French and then vice versa. Now, since so much time has passed, it would be insane to attribute this land back to Germany but at the same time, it was at a time occupied by German citizens living there. Now when we look at polish, very few years had passed and land that had very little polish identity for decades is now in the possession of Poland. Of course Germany had some claim to these lands at the time, but again these lands were Polish long ago.

Another place that resembles this dynamic would be Israel and the land of Judea. People are going to have extreme attachments to land that was once theirs, even if it had been hundreds of years since they had settled on it.

So it is not an insane or illogical idea that Germany wanted the Polish corridor and more precisely the free city of Danzig. (Also if i'm not mistaken I believe they merely wanted a highway connected the free city of danzig with both Germany and East Prussia without any limited access). It is an extremely convoluted and difficult question to anwser.

If you like Poland I have more than a few written accounts on thier extensive accomplishments in WWII. They really were given the short end of the stick and sold to Stalin for Greek freedom at the conclusion of WWII.
No chance you live near Maryland so I can pick your brain?
Yankee is offline  
Reply

  Historum > World History Forum > American History

Tags
america, wwii


Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
help contrasting between America and WWII Germany lostmisfits American History 151 March 9th, 2012 12:08 PM
WWII ~+Invisible-College+~ History Help 10 May 19th, 2010 04:21 PM
America in WWII Rosi American History 14 October 31st, 2008 10:44 AM
WWII: America fights only Japan Commander American History 11 January 7th, 2007 05:22 AM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.