WI: Germany is seen as justified going into WW2?

TinyTartar

Banned
This thought came up to me while viewing another thread. What if the Poles, Czechs, and Lithuanians truly DID oppress German minorities on a scale that causes Hitler to actually be seen as justified invading those countries?

Is there any way to forstall western intervention in the war, and somehow, make public opinion in America go a lot more in German favor?

I think that the militarist Polish government might be capable of such stupidity, and a pogrom or open discrimination of Germans might provide all the impetus necessary for a "just" war. Also, say the Czechs, who are actually more democratic, get a really reactionary government that does openly oppress the Sudeten Germans in a way so egregious that League of Nations condemns them.

Basically, the thing I have in mind is a west that is willing to look the other way to Hitler's eastern aggression because of the notion that he is doing whats right for his people.

I know that eventually things would swing the other way when Hitler shows his true colors, but what kind of impact would this have on the war in general if Britain and France see Hitler as being in the right?
 
With this sort of Polish, Czechoslovak and Lithuanian governments, what would the Soviet Union do? Before the Nazis come in 1933, wouldn't they force the governments to stop the discrimination and pogroms? And same with Weimar Germany.
 
Bit rosey eyed

I know that eventually things would swing the other way when Hitler shows his true colors, but what kind of impact would this have on the war in general if Britain and France see Hitler as being in the right?
The problem is: France & Britan going to war is not a moral question of "wrong or right". Okay - dash that. Starting wars are in general not about morals and all about power. And winning definitely is (though morals can act as a multiplier there).

I seriously doubt France, Britan or anyone else would have done anything (like in: at all) if Hitler had gassed every single jew in Germany as long as he as he stayed within the borders of the Weimar Republic. Give or take Austria perhaps. Sure: Everyone would have condemned it. But no one would have seriously done much about it.

And the other way round I am pretty sure the same is true. So no matter how bad German minorities get treated or such: France and Britain will not really base their geopolitical goals on that. So all in all: I think the PoD of the OP will not change a whole lot of things.
 
Last edited:
The problem is: France & Britan going to war is not a moral question of "wrong or right". It was a question about power. Okay - dash that. Wars ar in general not about morals and all about power.

I seriously doubt France, Britan or anyone else would have done anything (like in: at all) if Hitler had gassed every single jew in Germany as long as he as he stayed within the borders of the Weimar Republic. Give or take Austria perhaps. Sure: Everyone would have condemned it. But no one would have seriously done much about it.

And the other way round I am pretty sure the same is true. So no matter how bad German minorities get treated or such: France and Britain will not really base their geopolitical goals on that.

See you start off saying it was solely about power and end up arguing based on legality but all avoiding using that word.

That more than power was what the British and French were fighting for, they had power, power enough to do all that they wanted in their own territories. What they wanted was a bit of certainty, a bit of predictability, a bit of order in international relations.

Morality did come into but mostly what the war was about from the French and British and later American perspective was in preserving a system in which the rule of law, in this case international law as it was understood at the time, was preserved.

Which does rather make Hitler invading people and not being viewed as a menace to that rather more difficult.
 
This thought came up to me while viewing another thread. What if the Poles, Czechs, and Lithuanians truly DID oppress German minorities on a scale that causes Hitler to actually be seen as justified invading those countries?
But minorities were usually oppressed everywhere anyway, so why would anyone care in power politics? Upsetting the current world order, on the other hand, is a more serious offense.
 
This thought came up to me while viewing another thread. What if the Poles, Czechs, and Lithuanians truly DID oppress German minorities on a scale that causes Hitler to actually be seen as justified invading those countries?

Is there any way to forstall western intervention in the war, and somehow, make public opinion in America go a lot more in German favor?

I think that the militarist Polish government might be capable of such stupidity, and a pogrom or open discrimination of Germans might provide all the impetus necessary for a "just" war. Also, say the Czechs, who are actually more democratic, get a really reactionary government that does openly oppress the Sudeten Germans in a way so egregious that League of Nations condemns them.

Basically, the thing I have in mind is a west that is willing to look the other way to Hitler's eastern aggression because of the notion that he is doing whats right for his people.

I know that eventually things would swing the other way when Hitler shows his true colors, but what kind of impact would this have on the war in general if Britain and France see Hitler as being in the right?

As others have said, there were realpolitik concerns above and beyond minority rights. As there almost always are. Off the top of my head, I can think of maybe one truly humanitarian intervention (Somalia 1993). All the rest imho were just aggression covered with a humanitarian sauce.

It's never going to be in France or Britain's interest to allow Germany to get so strong that it's impossible to beat. That's why Britain didn't surrender. Not because she gave a fig for the oppressed peoples of Europe, but because if she didn't stop Germany then and there she wouldn't be able to stop Germany at all. Germany could've been run by Jesus Christ himself, Britain still would've done everything in her power (and more besides probably) in order to prevent it from uniting Europe.
 

tenthring

Banned
1) People feared Communism more then Nazism leading up to WWII. Heck, that's how Hitler got power, was able to get things like the Concordant with the Pope signed, get on the cover of Time magazine as person of the year.

It may well be that after the fact people found out about things like the Holocaust, but that wasn't happening yet in say 1939 (yes, ghettos and stuff happened, but your talking about a Britain and France with colonial possessions).

2) Many probably didn't understand the extent to which the German economy HAD to engage in a smash and grab campaign by 1939. Even if the peculiarities of Hitler weren't involved it was facing major economic and internal problems unless it won a war fast.

3) Germany's victory in France was shocking. Nobody expected it. Had Germany not been victorious we'd probably have had a coup against Hitler once things bogged down and a peace deal. Hitler would generally be viewed negatively but people would debate it and we wouldn't be in the situation we are today where his name is associated with pure evil.

Defeating France is by far the worse thing that could have happened to Germany. Ironically, doing worse on the battlefield might have enhance the Nazi's reputation in history.
 
The Chinese were getting killed wholesale after 1932, and Europe and USA did little.

Stalin even got some writups on how he was 'helping' the Ukrainians during the Famine

There were repeated anti-Catholic pogrom in Mexico, the Chaco War between Paraguay and Bolivia.

No one would lift a finger over Poles or Czechs doing bad things to Germans, even cross border raids.
 
Is that true?
He didn't get on the cover as man of the year because TIME magazine approved of him, he got there because he appeared to be leading Europe towards a major conflict.
The Man Of The Year award and the anti-Hitler article with it was the magazines way of warning the American public about Hitler
 
Last edited:
He didn't get on the cover as man of the year because TIME magazine approved of him, he got there because he appeared to be leading Europe towards a major conflict.
The Man Of The Year award and the anti-Hitler article with it was the magazines way of warning the American public about Hitler

People forget that "Man of the Year" award isn't supposed to be praise-worthy, but for the most notable newsmaker of the year...
 
Hitler in fact did something like this, he had patrols take over radio stations and fake broadcasts of Polish attacks.

74 years later, who do we remember attacked first?
 
What the war was about from the French and British and later American perspective was in preserving a system in which the rule of law, in this case international law as it was understood at the time, was preserved. Which does rather make Hitler invading people and not being viewed as a menace to that rather more difficult.
That's correct. Like I said: The British and French went to war over the "dismemberment" (just another word for invasion) of Czechoslovakia when Hitler went for his next territorial demand with Poland.

German's prosecuted or not somewhere in Poland will change very little about that at that point. And later on it will probably be drowned out by the massive (cough) "retaliation" of Germany against the Poles, Ukranians and Russians and of course the holocaust.

Pre-War politics will stay the same. Post-war judgement too.
 
This thought came up to me while viewing another thread. What if the Poles, Czechs, and Lithuanians truly DID oppress German minorities on a scale that causes Hitler to actually be seen as justified invading those countries?

Is there any way to forstall western intervention in the war, and somehow, make public opinion in America go a lot more in German favor?

I think that the militarist Polish government might be capable of such stupidity, and a pogrom or open discrimination of Germans might provide all the impetus necessary for a "just" war. Also, say the Czechs, who are actually more democratic, get a really reactionary government that does openly oppress the Sudeten Germans in a way so egregious that League of Nations condemns them.

Basically, the thing I have in mind is a west that is willing to look the other way to Hitler's eastern aggression because of the notion that he is doing whats right for his people.

I know that eventually things would swing the other way when Hitler shows his true colors, but what kind of impact would this have on the war in general if Britain and France see Hitler as being in the right?

Don't forget Austria!

The problem is - what then? Germany invaded every neighbour it had with the exception of the Swiss by the end of 1940 as well as several countries it was not a neighbour of.

How is that Justified?
 
Does it have to be justification?

I agree with the posts above that jstifying OTL moves doesn't help that much. I think the most effective in this regard would be to have Stalin misbehave even more.Eg. attack Romania, Finland or Poland before Germany. Not easy either.

But there is another option if you really want thing to go this way. Have an earlier break-through in the German WMD sicence. Have Germany field-test Tabun in Guernica. Ten you'll have someone who will be quite hesitant to go to war.
 
Top