origins of WWII

Poland is not going to give up Danzig nor agree to a rigged plebiscite for the Polish Corridor.

Great Britain and France are not selling another nation out to Hitler, least of all for a proposal as blatantly rigged as the one mentioned.

Hitler, far from being delighted was enraged over Munich, feeling it had cheated him. This gives a good idea into how he would have felt about a second such settlement.

Hitler is not throwing out the Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact for a fraction of what he expects to get from Poland very soon by force.

Hitler had already set upon the invasion of Poland on September 1, 1939 as non-negotiable and resented even this delay from late August.

The last proposal handed to Sir Neville Henderson as he was leaving for London, the peace initiative recognized as having failed, was a non-starter and treated with appropriate contempt by everyone as it was clear Hitler made an offer no other party would accept in hopes of avoiding total responsibility for the outbreak of war.



The premise that Hitler simply stumbled into war rather than going out of his way to force it is, of course, utter nonsense.
 
The premise that Hitler simply stumbled into war rather than going out of his way to force it is, of course, utter nonsense.[/QUOTE]


Ahh you have not heard of AJP Taylor then and his "The Origins of the Second World War". It was quite controversial for its time in that Taylor argued against the widespread belief that the outbreak of the war was the result of an intentional plan on the part of Hitler.

Taylor's thesis was that Hitler was not the demoniacal figure of popular imagination but in foreign affairs a normal German leader. Citing Fritz Fischer, he argued that the foreign policy of the Third Reich was the same as those of the Weimar Republic and the Second Reich. Moreover, in a partial break with his view of German history advocated in The Course of German History, he argued that Hitler was not just a normal German leader but also a normal Western leader. As a normal Western leader, Hitler was no better or worse than Stresemann, Chamberlain or Daladier. His argument was that Hitler wished to make Germany the strongest power in Europe but he did not want or plan war. The outbreak of war in 1939 was an unfortunate accident caused by mistakes on everyone's part.
 
;-))

I read the book several times during a spell at Frau Merkels pleasure.
Not much else to do in the cell.

Wikipedia saves time rather than retyping quotes from the book.
 
I must agree with Gridley quote on herding Cats. It is funny I see all sorts of bizzare proposals on the Alternate History forms such as Wank Iceland or aliens and here I am trying to start a discussion on a Point Of Departure that is quite reasonable, backed by a thesis by one of the leading historians of 20th Century and all I get is "Nah Mate, would never happen" at best or flamed ;-))
 
I am well aware of the controvery based on Taylor's claim that war somehow started in September 1939 by accident, rather than by Hitler's deliberate intent, his planning for the invasion of Poland and his diplomatic efforts, particularly involving the Soviet Union, to achieve his goals through military action under the best possible circumstances.

Taylor's claim was thoroughly debunked long ago. Incidentally you are aware that Fischer's conclusions as to the start of WWII and even of WWI were quite the opposite of Taylor's?
 
I must agree with Gridley quote on herding Cats. It is funny I see all sorts of bizzare proposals on the Alternate History forms such as Wank Iceland or aliens and here I am trying to start a discussion on a Point Of Departure that is quite reasonable, backed by a thesis by one of the leading historians of 20th Century and all I get is "Nah Mate, would never happen" at best or flamed

Perhaps it's because you're focused solely on Taylor's book just parrotting Taylor's thesis rather then objectively discussing a POD - something like, "WI the Poles submitted to the demands of Germany regarding Danzig and a plebisite on the Polish corridor." You need to do more than just repeat "Taylor says..."
 
Last edited:
We can only imagine a free hand for Hitler from Britain and France.
He splits Poland with Stalin.
Falowing that he repeats the invasion of Iugoslavia to help Italy and invade Russia too late.

Everything goes as real time except France isnt under german occupation and is no battle for England.
USA start suporting USSR and atract France and Britain to declare on Germany after Stalingrad.

But Hitler will never leave France and his military capacity intact with no pay back for WW I.

WW II was inevitable after Versailes and desirable as soon Germany felt ready.
I can only imagine a natzi Germany with nuclear weapons declaring war arround 1945 if things dont blow up as it did in real history.
 
As a reminder Hitler was so interested in peace and diplomacy that when France had surrendered the French were delighted to see that Alsace-Lorraine was not even mentioned in the armistice agreement, later realizing that Hitler had simply taken Alsace-Lorraine without even going to the minimal formality of including the change in the agreement.
 
"Everything goes as real time except France isnt under german occupation and is no battle for England.
USA start suporting USSR and atract France and Britain to declare on Germany after Stalingrad."

But with no bombing of German cities from Britain qouldn't the attack on Russia in 1941 go smoother? or wouldhe have delayed until 1942?

Why would the USA start supporting Russia? I suppose another point of divsion would be not Pearl Harbour to keep the USA out. Then surely it the Germans would beat the Russias or at least force them behind the Urals?
 
Why would the USA start supporting Russia? I suppose another point of divsion would be not Pearl Harbour to keep the USA out. Then surely it the Germans would beat the Russias or at least force them behind the Urals?

While it is probable that a later start to the European war would butterfly away the OTL Pearl Harbor raid, a war between Japan and the US is nearly certain at some point in the '40s. With Europe not actively at war Japan may very well feel the SE Asian European colonies are too well protected. Certainly absent the fall of France there won't be the easy grab of Indochina from OTL. OTOH, the oil embargo by the US might well happen anyway, at which point Japan pretty much has to fish or cut bait.

You might, for a while, get two separate wars: Japan vs. the western allies (including the US), and Germany vs. the USSR with the western allies leaning towards the latter. I think a key point in the development of the situation in Europe would be whether the USSR still invades Finland in the winter of '39-'40. If Germany isn't already at war with the W.Allies at that point an anti-USSR alliance of convenience might develop, and the German/W.Allies conflict might go on hold. MIGHT. IF. LOTS of uncertainty there.

Absent US & W.Allied support I don't see the USSR losing the war as probable, though a stalemate seems possible to me. This has been discussed on a LOT of threads on this board. Opinions vary from the "the Germans nearly conquered Russia anyway!" to "the huge masses of the USSR will conquer all of Europe unaided if Stalin tells them to!" I think the truth is in between; conquering the Urals is near-ASB territory even without Lend-Lease. Taking and holding (for a while) a line of Leningrad-Moscow-Sea of Azov is possible if a few better decisions are made and/or allied support is less.
 

Cook

Banned
;-))

I read the book several times during a spell at Frau Merkels pleasure.
Not much else to do in the cell.

Wikipedia saves time rather than retyping quotes from the book.

Thankyou.

I’ve only read one of Taylor’s books, a history of Europe in the 19th century. Can’t say I was overly impressed and was wondering if the book you’re referring to is worth the effort to track down.

Sorry if it sounded sarcastic, I should have been clearer.
 
.....

B -what kind of plebiscite is it, where the outcome is decided before the vote?
...

An EU referendum ?
They seem awfully good at ignoring "wrong" results ....


-- Back on topic ---
Looking at Polands behavious in the interwar years there is nothing to suggest they should be willing to trade "land for peace".
A major cause of the quick german victory was that the poles insisted on defending every part of the country, thus being weak everywhere they were defeated in detail.
 
Top