Historum - History Forums  

Go Back   Historum - History Forums > Themes in History > War and Military History
Register Forums Blogs Social Groups Mark Forums Read

War and Military History War and Military History Forum - Warfare, Tactics, and Military Technology over the centuries


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old November 14th, 2012, 09:18 PM   #21

Spartacuss's Avatar
If I'm lyin' I'm dyin'...
 
Joined: Jul 2010
From: Georgia, USA
Posts: 6,341

Click the image to open in full size.

Clearly, the bridge was blown.
Spartacuss is online now  
Remove Ads
Old November 14th, 2012, 11:26 PM   #22

beorna's Avatar
αἰὲν ἀριστεύειν
 
Joined: Jan 2010
From: Lower Saxony
Posts: 12,181

Quote:
Originally Posted by Edward View Post
Attacking the bridge in Dirschau? What for? Germany needed this bridge intact to move forces from East Prussia to Danzig and Polish Corridor. The bridge was blown up by Polish sapper in the face of surprising attack by German forces. Please revise your historical knowledge regarding this events.
Click the image to open in full size.
Dirsscha is marked here under Polish name Tczew.




Click the image to open in full size.
Destroyed bridge photo
Their attack was against the Polish positions at the bridge. I did not say, that they tried to destroy the bridge.
beorna is offline  
Old November 15th, 2012, 06:31 AM   #23

caldrail's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Feb 2012
Posts: 2,438

Quote:
Although Germany and Japan were supposed allies, AFAIK they never fought together
I know Germany supplied Japan with examples of technology and consignments of ore. Strictly speaking, they did fight together - Russia launched an invasion of Japanese islands in 1945
caldrail is offline  
Old November 15th, 2012, 03:10 PM   #24
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Nov 2009
From: Queensland, Australia
Posts: 3,760

Quote:
Originally Posted by beorna View Post
Their attack was against the Polish positions at the bridge. I did not say, that they tried to destroy the bridge.
That what you said; "already at 4:33 3 Ju87B, starting from Elbing, attacked the bridge at Dirschau."
By the way, German planned to take possession of the bridge before official invasion started.
It was planned that trainload of German soldiers plus German Armoured Train will stop on the bridge and make them secure. The civilian train from East Prussia was manned by German railroad personnel in Polish Railroad Uniforms.
This action was delayed by Polish railroad crew in Szymankowoa station. The trains were diverted to the siding and stopped long enough (about hr) to allow Polish sappers to blow the bridge.
In revenge for failure of their plans, Germans murdered the Polish railroad crew at Szymankowa including their families. It was probably the first German atrocity in WWII. So if WWII started in Tczew, the German atrocities started there as well.

Last edited by Edward; November 15th, 2012 at 03:30 PM.
Edward is offline  
Old November 15th, 2012, 06:21 PM   #25

Tudor chick's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: May 2007
From: Australia
Posts: 1,727
Blog Entries: 2

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sicknero View Post
Also of course, some writers describe WW2 as an inevitable continuation of WW1.
I have read this in studying world history this years.

Your question says, what started WW11 not what battle started WW11.

From what I have read, there are a lot of reasons WW11 happened which have not been addressed here I dont think, which relate the thinking that WW11 was just a continuation of WW1 with a bit of a gap in it.

After loosing WW1, Germany had caused huge damage to the rest of Europe and was made to pay retributions and the Versailles treaty drawn up, which left Germany bankrupt, broke and in a huge depression. Countries such as France not only wanted to punish Germany but to destroy it completely.

Germany was the only country that also had to sign a guilt clause, for WW1 and none of the other countries that fought with Germany had to sign this.

Germany was not suppose to develop any arms from the loans they got from other countries to survive, were not suppose to go towards building any military strength. But they did. Other European countries were not building up their military either, just recovering from a war that destroyed their countries economies

This goes to explain a little when Hitler came along why people were so eager to follow his promises of a better life for their country. All this I might add is no excuse for the terror that the Nazi party caused.

It is very correct the Hitler's continued invasion of Poland, more than just the border towns, that were occupied by Germans which were the first part of his expansion policy, did start the declaration of war from England against Germany. Bit was this a continuation from that policy from WW1? I dont know.

None of the allied countries could not afford or did not want to go back into war after the Great War, the war to end all wars. But Hitler had to be stop.

It was a pity that the treaty that was made up after WW11 was not done after WW1 and we may not have had another world war.
But then we may not have had so many countries in the European Union that really should not have and could not afford to be in it.. like Spain, who is now in a real mess, but that is another topic.
Tudor chick is offline  
Old November 16th, 2012, 01:50 AM   #26

Sicknero's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: May 2012
From: Here to Eternity
Posts: 3,974

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tudor chick View Post
I have read this in studying world history this years.

Your question says, what started WW11 not what battle started WW11.

From what I have read, there are a lot of reasons WW11 happened which have not been addressed here I dont think, which relate the thinking that WW11 was just a continuation of WW1 with a bit of a gap in it.

After loosing WW1, Germany had caused huge damage to the rest of Europe and was made to pay retributions and the Versailles treaty drawn up, which left Germany bankrupt, broke and in a huge depression. Countries such as France not only wanted to punish Germany but to destroy it completely.

Germany was the only country that also had to sign a guilt clause, for WW1 and none of the other countries that fought with Germany had to sign this.

Germany was not suppose to develop any arms from the loans they got from other countries to survive, were not suppose to go towards building any military strength. But they did. Other European countries were not building up their military either, just recovering from a war that destroyed their countries economies

This goes to explain a little when Hitler came along why people were so eager to follow his promises of a better life for their country. All this I might add is no excuse for the terror that the Nazi party caused.

It is very correct the Hitler's continued invasion of Poland, more than just the border towns, that were occupied by Germans which were the first part of his expansion policy, did start the declaration of war from England against Germany. Bit was this a continuation from that policy from WW1? I dont know.

None of the allied countries could not afford or did not want to go back into war after the Great War, the war to end all wars. But Hitler had to be stop.

It was a pity that the treaty that was made up after WW11 was not done after WW1 and we may not have had another world war.
But then we may not have had so many countries in the European Union that really should not have and could not afford to be in it.. like Spain, who is now in a real mess, but that is another topic.
This is pretty much what I was referring to, but with a couple of additions ...

The belief that Germany alone caused so much destruction and carnage in Europe - this was and still is seen by many as an unfair judgement. While they certainly grabbed at a perceived opportunity to expand and restore their power in Europe, they can hardly be held responsible for the whole war which involved many countries and itself was caused by a variety of rapidly escalating factors.
Horrifying though the Western Front undoubtedly was, no major cities were flattened or even effected in any way that compares to WW2 - it was fought largely in rural areas which recovered quite quickly post-1918 - and the effect on civilians pales when compared to other fronts. While overall casualties among the major countries were around 2-5%, Serbia lost something like 15-25% (depending on sources) of the population in her war against Austria-Hungary, the majority of those being civilian deaths from disease and malnutrition.
Despite this, Germany was certainly made to "carry the can" which as you say led to a great deal of lingering resentment. (Interestingly Germany only finished paying WW1 reparations in September 2010.)

An additional factor was the widespread belief that Germany was never decisively beaten, indeed her armies marched home for the most part in good order and were welcomed as heroes. This gave rise to accusations aimed at the government of treason against their own people, a feeling that Hitler capitalised on so effectively as he rose to power.

The social and political climate in Europe in the mid to late 1920s, was one of growth and optimism I think.
The Locarno Treaties of 1925 which 'permanently' established national borders as agreed at Versailles, and the Kellogg-Briand pact (or Pact of Paris) in 1928 (in which 65 countries agreed to outlaw war as a means of resolving disputes), coupled with the recovery from recession and flu pandemic, and fresh economic growth and optimism, led to an air of complacency. A famous book at the time (the title and author of which utterly escape me for the moment sorry) described the negative impact of war on international economics and markets, leading to a widespread belief that no country would see war as being in its best interests. Even the Weimar Republic was enjoying recovery and growth after the awful post-war poverty. Historians describe a Europe in which most people just couldn't conceive of another war, never mind an all-engulfing one. The naivety is almost heart-breaking.

Thus when the Wall Street Crash came in 1929, impacting markets and economies around the world, Germany was one of the first and hardest hit in Europe. The optimistic "no-war" agreements fell apart under the realisation that such agreements depended wholly on everybody staying friends, and the fact that in reality even Europe's strongest powers were unwilling to enforce such agreements or intervene in far-off countries. Latent nationalists still resenting Versailles and Locarno became active again in Germany, all it needed was for somebody to take the lead and capitalise on the resentment and poverty.
Some writers say that had it not been Hitler, it would in all probability have been someone else. The stage was ready and empty, just waiting for some nationalistic despot to take it and lead the country to 'greatness' once more.

In the pre-WW2 short-term, Hitler got away with a great deal because of the unwillingness of other countries to intervene. The self-deception they must have been inflicting on themselves seems obvious now of course, but that's naturally with the wisdom of hindsight. Some weren't fooled... Churchill for one wanted to go to war long before Czeckoslovakia and Poland and thought that had he been listened to it would indeed have been "all over by Christmas". But, hindsight again.

Whether the eventual declaration of war following the invasion of Poland qualifies as an extension of WW1 policies ... hard to say. For one thing Poland of course didn't even exist as an independent state until post-WW1, but I guess you could say it was the application of a policy which is many centuries old, that of resisting one country's dominance over the rest of Europe.

Apologies for waffling on! It's a complicated topic though and these thoughts are just what I've taken from my (not as extensive as I'd like) reading on the subject. I don't doubt I've missed a lot, and am probably just wrong about some some of it. I'm looking forward to reading other posts.

Last edited by Sicknero; November 16th, 2012 at 01:57 AM.
Sicknero is offline  
Old November 16th, 2012, 08:38 AM   #27

antonina's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Mar 2011
From: Warsaw, Poland
Posts: 5,405

Quote:
Originally Posted by Currahee View Post
What was the series of events that began the Second World War?
The answer is complex and of course many contributing factors can be discussed, but in the discussion let's not lose sight of an elementary fact:

World War II was started jointly by two totalitarian states - the Third Reich and USSR.

Sorry about the bold print, but I do feel it's high time to stop endlessly and mechanically repeating the cliche that one state only started World War II.

The Nazi and the Soviet leadership signed an agreement to invade and divide between them large swathes of the European continent. The provisions of this partition were included in the secret protocol to the so-called Ribbentrop-Molotov pact signed in Moscow on 23 April 1939.

Following this agreement, Germany invaded Poland from the west on 1 September 1939 and USSR from the east on 17 September 1939. Acording to the terms of the abovementioned pact between Hitler and Stalin, the territory of II Polish Republic was divided between the Third Reich and USSR along the Ribbentrop-Molotov line.

The subsequent invasion and annexation by USSR of the Baltic states (Lithuania, Estonia and Latvia) and the Soviet invasion of Finland - also in accordance with the provisions of the Ribbentrop-Molotov pact - were further episodes of World War II.

Last edited by antonina; November 16th, 2012 at 08:50 AM.
antonina is offline  
Old November 16th, 2012, 06:51 PM   #28

Tudor chick's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: May 2007
From: Australia
Posts: 1,727
Blog Entries: 2

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sicknero View Post
This is pretty much what I was referring to, but with a couple of additions ...

The belief that Germany alone caused so much destruction and carnage in Europe - this was and still is seen by many as an unfair judgement. While they certainly grabbed at a perceived opportunity to expand and restore their power in Europe, they can hardly be held responsible for the whole war which involved many countries and itself was caused by a variety of rapidly escalating factors.
Horrifying though the Western Front undoubtedly was, no major cities were flattened or even effected in any way that compares to WW2 - it was fought largely in rural areas which recovered quite quickly post-1918 - and the effect on civilians pales when compared to other fronts. While overall casualties among the major countries were around 2-5%, Serbia lost something like 15-25% (depending on sources) of the population in her war against Austria-Hungary, the majority of those being civilian deaths from disease and malnutrition.
Despite this, Germany was certainly made to "carry the can" which as you say led to a great deal of lingering resentment. (Interestingly Germany only finished paying WW1 reparations in September 2010.)

An additional factor was the widespread belief that Germany was never decisively beaten, indeed her armies marched home for the most part in good order and were welcomed as heroes. This gave rise to accusations aimed at the government of treason against their own people, a feeling that Hitler capitalised on so effectively as he rose to power.

The social and political climate in Europe in the mid to late 1920s, was one of growth and optimism I think.
The Locarno Treaties of 1925 which 'permanently' established national borders as agreed at Versailles, and the Kellogg-Briand pact (or Pact of Paris) in 1928 (in which 65 countries agreed to outlaw war as a means of resolving disputes), coupled with the recovery from recession and flu pandemic, and fresh economic growth and optimism, led to an air of complacency. A famous book at the time (the title and author of which utterly escape me for the moment sorry) described the negative impact of war on international economics and markets, leading to a widespread belief that no country would see war as being in its best interests. Even the Weimar Republic was enjoying recovery and growth after the awful post-war poverty. Historians describe a Europe in which most people just couldn't conceive of another war, never mind an all-engulfing one. The naivety is almost heart-breaking.

Thus when the Wall Street Crash came in 1929, impacting markets and economies around the world, Germany was one of the first and hardest hit in Europe. The optimistic "no-war" agreements fell apart under the realisation that such agreements depended wholly on everybody staying friends, and the fact that in reality even Europe's strongest powers were unwilling to enforce such agreements or intervene in far-off countries. Latent nationalists still resenting Versailles and Locarno became active again in Germany, all it needed was for somebody to take the lead and capitalise on the resentment and poverty.
Some writers say that had it not been Hitler, it would in all probability have been someone else. The stage was ready and empty, just waiting for some nationalistic despot to take it and lead the country to 'greatness' once more.

In the pre-WW2 short-term, Hitler got away with a great deal because of the unwillingness of other countries to intervene. The self-deception they must have been inflicting on themselves seems obvious now of course, but that's naturally with the wisdom of hindsight. Some weren't fooled... Churchill for one wanted to go to war long before Czeckoslovakia and Poland and thought that had he been listened to it would indeed have been "all over by Christmas". But, hindsight again.

Whether the eventual declaration of war following the invasion of Poland qualifies as an extension of WW1 policies ... hard to say. For one thing Poland of course didn't even exist as an independent state until post-WW1, but I guess you could say it was the application of a policy which is many centuries old, that of resisting one country's dominance over the rest of Europe.

Apologies for waffling on! It's a complicated topic though and these thoughts are just what I've taken from my (not as extensive as I'd like) reading on the subject. I don't doubt I've missed a lot, and am probably just wrong about some some of it. I'm looking forward to reading other posts.
Thank you for answering my post. Being over the other side of the world I miss the main parts of conversation then my posts get missed a lot of the time.

Yes I agree with all your comments as this is what I have been studying this year and wrote an essay about it.
As I said, a better agreement after WW1 would have been better! But as you say hind site.
Tudor chick is offline  
Old November 16th, 2012, 06:56 PM   #29

Tudor chick's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: May 2007
From: Australia
Posts: 1,727
Blog Entries: 2

Quote:
Originally Posted by antonina View Post
The answer is complex and of course many contributing factors can be discussed, but in the discussion let's not lose sight of an elementary fact:

World War II was started jointly by two totalitarian states - the Third Reich and USSR.

Sorry about the bold print, but I do feel it's high time to stop endlessly and mechanically repeating the cliche that one state only started World War II.

The Nazi and the Soviet leadership signed an agreement to invade and divide between them large swathes of the European continent. The provisions of this partition were included in the secret protocol to the so-called Ribbentrop-Molotov pact signed in Moscow on 23 April 1939.

Following this agreement, Germany invaded Poland from the west on 1 September 1939 and USSR from the east on 17 September 1939. Acording to the terms of the abovementioned pact between Hitler and Stalin, the territory of II Polish Republic was divided between the Third Reich and USSR along the Ribbentrop-Molotov line.

The subsequent invasion and annexation by USSR of the Baltic states (Lithuania, Estonia and Latvia) and the Soviet invasion of Finland - also in accordance with the provisions of the Ribbentrop-Molotov pact - were further episodes of World War II.
Yes agreed. But if Germany had not had an expansion policy and then had this pact with Russia would have Russia invaded Poland by itself ? Did Russia need to invade Poland?
Tudor chick is offline  
Old November 16th, 2012, 09:24 PM   #30
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Nov 2009
From: Queensland, Australia
Posts: 3,760

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tudor chick View Post
Yes agreed. But if Germany had not had an expansion policy and then had this pact with Russia would have Russia invaded Poland by itself ? Did Russia need to invade Poland?
It was always Soviet intention to recover territories lost to Poland as a result of Polish-Bolshevik Russia war of 1919-1921. But I do not believe that Soviet Union will invade Poland by itself at that time.

Last edited by Edward; November 16th, 2012 at 09:34 PM.
Edward is offline  
Reply

  Historum > Themes in History > War and Military History

Tags
start, wwii


Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Where to start? Kylar Stern Ancient History 8 August 30th, 2012 10:07 AM
Where to start, where to start... Yekkelle Asian History 3 June 11th, 2012 07:23 AM
Soviets start WWII kevinthecool Speculative History 1 September 5th, 2008 02:04 PM
When did WWII start? Commander War and Military History 25 February 10th, 2007 09:50 AM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.