A Moral Question about WW2

[GaryChildress]

Should Poland have ceded the Danzig corridor to Hitler? Would that have averted WW2 and therefore saved countless human beings from enormous suffering? What would the world look like today had Hitler remained in power in Germany? Was WW2 worth it?

Personally, I'd like to think that stopping Hitler was the right thing to do. I'd like to think that good triumphed over evil. Because if that is not the case, then perhaps untold human suffering occurred for no good reason. However, if human suffering could have been minimized by letting Hitler get his way (and assuming Hitler would have stopped at the Danzig corridor), then what are we to make of what happened?

[altipueri]

Gary Grigsby would be in tears with no WITE to make.
--

Who knows?
There's a lot more randomness than people like to acknowledge. If any of the assassination attempts on Hitler had succeeded (there were some before 1939)?

Currently Zelinsky in Ukraine has had about ten against him this year.


Edit: I've just looked up attempts on Hitler: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_a ... olf_Hitler

[Zovs]

Personally I think even if Poland ceded Danzig Hilter and Germany would still have attacked Poland, and the same results would have and needed to happen. Humanity has been suffering long before WW2 (ask the persecuted Christians or Jews in Roman times), and is still suffering long after WW2 (Communist persecuting Chines, Russians and Ukrainians, the Koreans and Vietnamese, all the Middle Easter people and now in the Ukraine).

Nothing ever changes.

[sPzAbt653]

I would guess that Hitler's plans for Lebensraum and a New Order weren't going to stop at the Danzig Corridor.

It is a stronger argument that England and France allowed all of the 'untold human suffering' by not stopping Hitler earlier. We face the same thing today with portions of the free world population crying to let Putin have what he wants. Bulletin to Earth: Putin wants it all, the same as Hitler. I'm happy to see my tax dollars spent on Javelins for Ukraine while crime is rampant here in the States. I can defend myself, but I cannot defend Europe.

[gamer78]

.

[TheGrayMouser]

I would guess that Hitler's plans for Lebensraum and a New Order weren't going to stop at the Danzig Corridor.

It is a stronger argument that England and France allowed all of the 'untold human suffering' by not stopping Hitler earlier. We face the same thing today with portions of the free world population crying to let Putin have what he wants. Bulletin to Earth: Putin wants it all, the same as Hitler. I'm happy to see my tax dollars spent on Javelins for Ukraine while crime is rampant here in the States. I can defend myself, but I cannot defend Europe.

Russia, a country with a GDP the size of Texas, is having, as we are witnessing, a hard time vs a non NATO country. It’s not clear to me how they could even contemplate attacking a NATO country with any chance of anything except utter failure or worse. So I don’t think they “want it all”. They appear to have wanted a regime change, and to solidify hold the on the Donbas and Crimea. This analysis has been known since 2014.

Currently, US leaders are talking of not only stopping Russia in Ukraine but “preventing them” from doing something like it ever again. What does that mean? Scary times. Foresight would be a wonderful thing to possess!

[gamer78]

.

[TheGrayMouser]

It was the European Union council before how to get rid of "populist leaders" pressure or not to pressure. Hungary is the prime example, similarly Romania was 'badboy' in Soviet Union. I look forward American&Chinese power struggle in near future. 'Free world 'against so called communists.

I’d rather read about power struggles/realpolitik from the past than living thru one. One of those two biggies will drive the guy in distant third place to the other. I hope there is electricity in 2040 to read about how it played out.

[TheGrayMouser]

So Hitler was a military adventurer in many ways, not so different than Napoleon or Attila or Alexander the Great except scale of horrors. As such I think there was a morale failing to nip it in the bud when there was a chance. Easier said than done considering the traumatizing effect of ww1. Who wants to pull the trigger and be responsible for a repeat, easier to give up a little freedom ( other peoples!) for a chance at peace perhaps…. The Sitskrieg imho was really the big failing though.

[Capt. Harlock]

Very few conquerors are willing to stop once they really get rolling. Only death or capture brings their seizing of territory to an end: think of Alexander the Great, Attila the Hun, Timur AKA Tamerlane, Genghis Khan, Napoleon, etc. Hitler wasn't satisfied with Poland or even with France once he had wiped out the defeat of WWI. I see no reason to think he would have stopped after merely getting the Polish corridor.

[warspite1]

I would guess that Hitler's plans for Lebensraum and a New Order weren't going to stop at the Danzig Corridor.

It is a stronger argument that England and France allowed all of the 'untold human suffering' by not stopping Hitler earlier.

warspite1

Re your first point. 100% correct. A small piece of Poland was totally irrelevant to Hitler. By September 1939 Hitler had practically torn up the Treaty of Versailles. WWII was not about Versailles it was about Lebensraum. And Lebensraum wasn't to be found in Poland or France....

As for your second comment. Well, there are plenty of arguments that can be made. The UK and France are easy targets (and are far from blameless) but there is also the argument:

- The 37% of the German electorate that made the Nazi's the largest party in 1932 are to blame
- Those in the highest echelons of power that handed Hitler the Chancellorship because they thought they could control him are to blame
- The anti-Hitler generals within the army who would mount a coup but only if another country declared war on Germany are to blame
- Stalin is to blame for cosying up to Hitler
- The US are to blame for their isolationist stance
- The countries large and small that traded with Germany are to blame
- The countries large and small that refused to increase military spending in the thirties are to blame

.... the list goes on and on.

I find it strange that to some, the US get no blame for not getting involved in Europe or Asia because of public opinion, but the UK and France get no such defence. Look at how Chamberlain's peace efforts were greeted all over Europe. No one wanted war. Public opinion mattered in the UK and France too.

After losses in WWI on someone else's behalf, I don't necessarily blame the US for their isolationist stance, what I find strange is that the UK and France are, by some, held to a different standard.

[sPzAbt653]

... the list goes on and on.

It really is so incredibly interesting. While I love Tactics, Operations and Strategy, the Political aspects of any 'war' are intriguing. Although because of it's nature, we'll never know every aspect of Political influences.

the UK and France are, by some, held to a different measure.

Because they were the assumed 'keepers of the European Peace' after WWI, and they signed agreements to that effect. The USA was not involved in any of that.

Of course, we could take it to the next level and claim that the USA is the keeper of World Peace, and therefore should have been more active in European affairs in the years between the World Wars.

[warspite1]

Because they were the assumed 'keepers of the European Peace' after WWI, and they signed agreements to that effect. The USA was not involved in any of that.

warspite1

Where does it say they were the 'keepers of the European Peace'? Can you confirm which agreements you refer to please?

The UK and France were countries in their own right who acted in their own self interest - like all countries. For the UK, ensuring no one country had hedgemony in Europe was a goal hundreds of years old. For France, ensuring Germany was not too strong had been an issue since the late 19th Century. The UK and France had no peace keeper role other than the one they decided would be in their own interest (but happy to stand corrected if you can point me in the direction of the agreements they signed).

[warspite1]

However, if human suffering could have been minimized by letting Hitler get his way (and assuming Hitler would have stopped at the Danzig corridor), then what are we to make of what happened?

warspite1

The comments by sPzAbt653 have brought me back to this part of your OP and is a perfect example of why criticism of Chamberlain and Daladier is, for the most part, so unfair.

That very sentiment you express is what the British and French were hoping. It is easy for us in our cosy 21st century existence to forget the carnage of WWI and the effect it had on European nations. No one wanted that again - and indeed the US were so keen not for it to happen again that they turned to isolationism. Its perfectly understandable.

The problem was, very few people really understood that Hitler was never going to be stopped - and that isn't something that can only be laid at the door of Chamberlain and Daladier. They assumed it was more likely that by giving in to his wants (and this wasn't difficult as many in the west felt the Versailles Treaty was too harsh and needed revising) he would then be satisfied. So the Rhineland, the Anschluss, even the Sudetenland - these weren't that unreasonable in themselves. And if giving in to these meant no general war then they were deemed worth the price.

Sadly, it was only with Prague in March 1939 that the veil finally slipped and it was realised that Hitler would not stop - and it was at that point that Poland became the Rubicon.

Could the Rubicon have been imposed earlier? Well its easy with hindsight but not if you look at things as they were at the time. The Rhineland occupation was expensive and part of the Treaty of Versailles that people were having second thoughts about. The Anschluss was two German speaking peoples uniting - and Hitler wasn't the first German/Austrian to wish for this. The reaction of the Austrians subsequently prove that going to war over this would have been a disaster. The Sudetenland? As with Austria, not much of a cassus belli is it? Why are we going to war then Nev? Well because 3m Sudeten Germans want to be ruled by Germany...... Add in that at least two of the Dominions had told the UK they were not prepared to go to war over the Sudetenland, add in public opinion was against another war, add in unpreparedness, add in lack of money, and well, what have you got? There is nothing to say that war in 1938 would not have resulted in the same or similar mess to 1939-45, but its just convenient to say it would all have been different for those seeking to lay the blame the UK and France.

[altipueri]

About 50% of doctors joined the Nazi party.

Poland was happy to nibble on a bit of Czechoslovakia at Munich (Teschen/Taschen ?)

Russia should have been dealt with in 2014 over Crimea, not 2022.

My 20:20 hindsight is as good as anybody else's.

[sPzAbt653]

Can you confirm which agreements you refer to please?

On 31 March 1939, in response to Nazi Germany's defiance of the Munich Agreement and its occupation of Czechoslovakia,[6] in Parliament, the United Kingdom pledged the support of itself and France to assure Polish independence:

You don't even know the most basic of facts. Yet you have been blabbering your garbage on this forum for years. I guess most people have you blocked. I need not block you, because I don't read most of your endless paragraphs of a fools banter.

[sPzAbt653]

Russia should have been dealt with in 2014 over Crimea, not 2022.

Yes, it seems that similar to Hitler in the 30's, Putin has been getting away with too much for too long.

[warspite1]

You don't even know the most basic of facts. Yet you have been blabbering your garbage on this forum for years. I guess most people have you blocked. I need not block you, because I don't read most of your endless paragraphs of a fools banter.

warspite1

I’m not completely sure why you have responded as you have. I simply gave my thoughts – same as everyone else that posted – and asked you to clarify something you wrote.

I thought we were having a grown up debate – you know, where opinions are shared, arguments made and cases put.
In response you said:

You don't even know the most basic of facts. Yet you have been blabbering your garbage on this forum for years. I guess most people have you blocked. I need not block you, because I don't read most of your endless paragraphs of a fools banter.

You could have argued your case, responding to my post accordingly, but instead you’ve gone straight for the personal attack. “blabbering… garbage”, “fools banter”.

Well done.

[warspite1]

Can you confirm which agreements you refer to please?

On 31 March 1939, in response to Nazi Germany's defiance of the Munich Agreement and its occupation of Czechoslovakia,[6] in Parliament, the United Kingdom pledged the support of itself and France to assure Polish independence:

warspite1

In an earlier post you seemed to be under the mis-guided impression that the UK and France were in some way assumed to be the ‘peacekeepers’ of Europe. You didn’t specify when but presumably you meant in the inter-war years. Indeed you went so far as to suggest that ‘agreements’ were signed to that effect.

I asked you to provide evidence of any such agreement and you posted this:

On 31 March 1939, in response to Nazi Germany's defiance of the Munich Agreement and its occupation of Czechoslovakia,[6] in Parliament, the United Kingdom pledged the support of itself and France to assure Polish independence

It is rather ironic that you earlier proudly stated:

I don't read most of your endless paragraphs of a fools banter.

If you had given me the courtesy of reading what I wrote you would perhaps have understood that, in providing that wiki quote, you simply confirmed what I had written earlier when I said:

The UK and France had no peace keeper role other than the one they decided would be in their own interest

The wiki quote you provided (about an event in March 1939) is, in no way, evidence of some ‘peacekeeper role’ backed by formal agreements. Instead it is evidence, as I stated, that the invasion of Prague was the tipping point that made – for the UK and France – Poland the Rubicon. Hitler's breaking of the Munich Agreement was, in effect, the straw that broke the camel's back.

The pledge made by the UK and France in support of Poland (and the consequent declaring of war on Germany on 3 September 1939) was not in fulfilment of some imaginary peacekeeper role, but was the logical extension of the UK’s policy on European hedgemony and France’s fear of Germany becoming too strong.

Now, as requested previously, if you believe that the UK and France had some sort of formal, legally binding agreement to be Europe’s ‘peacekeeper’, then please provide the details. I would love to know who the signatories to these agreements were.

[warspite1]

Double post?