PDA

View Full Version : Did WW2 actually happen?



SeaFireLIV
10-07-2008, 02:33 PM
No really.


Think about it. WW1 was with the Germans, right? WW2 was with the Germans too. And they were both world wars. And everyone who fought them, fought them again, Brits, US, Russians... It`s like we just had a rest inbetween... then carried on a bit later...


I think WW2 was WW1 continued. So it should be called WW1.1


I`ll get back to my artwork then, while getting my coat.

stalkervision
10-07-2008, 02:36 PM
What always confuses me is "the phony war" http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/66/Hitlerwarn.png

just like my wife after eating boston baked beans for dinner.. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

Anyone have a spare gas mask handy? I have been pricing them lately and good ones a bit expensive. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Mr_Zooly
10-07-2008, 02:38 PM
Phoney way was the lack of direct action (by both sides) after Dunkirk debacle/miracle.
Other than that http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Woke_Up_Dead
10-07-2008, 03:22 PM
Originally posted by Mr_Zooly:
Phoney way was the lack of direct action (by both sides) after Dunkirk debacle/miracle.
Other than that http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

I believe the phony war was between the end of the September campaign in Poland and the beginning of the invasion of Denmark and Norway. The Germans were taking their time building up strength, the French were waiting patiently behind their Maginot line, and the British were dropping leaflets (which is why the British press also called that period of time "The Confetti War").

VF-17_Jolly
10-07-2008, 03:28 PM
WW II may have been built on the back of WW I ie the treaty of versie(sp) ,spiraling inflation,unemployment,dissatisfaction with the goverment and ultimatly the rise of the Nazi party. It was fought for very different reasons

WTE_Galway
10-07-2008, 04:24 PM
The phony war is the period they moved all the children out of London ... then moved them back just before the Blitz.

M_Gunz
10-07-2008, 04:44 PM
If I can believe the was there a BoB then I should believe that there was no WWII I suppose.
After all, the Germans didn't win or even land troops in the US for that matter.

Somehow, I would think that an entire generation between major conflicts would call for it a
whole new war. Think of all the new generals, would you hand them an old, used war? Don't
they deserve a new one with bigger and better weapons, more troops and people to kill?

Oh the nerve of some people!

WTE_Galway
10-07-2008, 04:48 PM
Originally posted by M_Gunz:
If I can believe the was there a BoB then I should believe that there was no WWII I suppose.
After all, the Germans didn't win or even land troops in the US for that matter.

Somehow, I would think that an entire generation between major conflicts would call for it a
whole new war. Think of all the new generals, would you hand them an old, used war? Don't
they deserve a new one with bigger and better weapons, more troops and people to kill?

Oh the nerve of some people!


Didn't Naom Chomsky suggest at one stage that the current wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were actually part of the one ongoing war that included Korea and Vietnam ??

josephs1959
10-07-2008, 07:56 PM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by SeaFireLIV:
No really.


Think about it. WW1 was with the Germans, right? WW2 was with the Germans too. And they were both world wars. And everyone who fought them, fought them again, Brits, US, Russians... It`s like we just had a rest inbetween... then carried on a bit later...


I think WW2 was WW1 continued. So it should be called WW1.1

There are some shall we call them experts/historians? That consider the entire 20th century to be a continuance of one struggle onto another because of prior struggles not being fully or completely settled.In fact the latter half of the 20th century was as deadly as the prior half.

I think that it's ironic that the 20th century started with the Serb/Croatian imbroglio which eventually lead into WWI and we ended with a morass towards the end of the 20th century there again.
I guess old prejudices are hard to let go of.

arjisme
10-07-2008, 08:37 PM
Originally posted by SeaFireLIV:
I think WW2 was WW1 continued. So it should be called WW1.1 No, see Italy changed sides. That's why they decided to call it WWII.

P.FunkAdelic
10-07-2008, 08:52 PM
I'm not sure who it was, maybe Ludendorf or Hindenburg who said, in criticism of the Paris Peace accord "This isn't a peace treaty, its an armistice of 20 years."

Maybe it was Churchill. I used to know. Bah!

Buzzsaw-
10-07-2008, 09:35 PM
Salute

Silly subject, which has been given some life by posters...

It is a little known fact that the war objectives of the Germans in WWI were very similar to those of the Nazis in WWII.

The German government was looking for 'Lebensraum', in much the same way as Hitler. The Imperial German Government intended to permanently annex Poland, the Ukraine and Western Russia, and repopulate the area with Germans, who would act as overseers to the mass of Russian or Ukrainian serfs. In the west they intended to annex Luxembourg, and parts of Belgium, as well as more of the frontier areas of France.

The one difference would be that the Imperial German Gov't did not plan a holacaust versus the Jews or other so-called 'untermensch'. Jews served throughout the armed forces, even in senior positions. There was a lot of anti-semitism, (there was even more in France during the same period) but it did not exist as an officially sanctioned policy.

After the war, the most powerful person in WWI Germany, Gen. Erich Ludendorff, who with Gen. Paul Von Hindenberg, controlled pretty much all aspects of Germany's war effort from August 1916, was enlisted by Hitler as a participant in the abortive 1923 putsch attempt. Ludendorff's support had earlier been instrumental in the creation and growth of the Nazi party, and Hitler's role as leader. Later Ludendorff rejected Hitler, too late.

The Nazi Party and its ideology was only part of the reason for the Second World War, the culture of German Militarism, carried over from WWI and before, was also a large factor.

WTE_Galway
10-08-2008, 12:32 AM
There are many mysteries that confound us about the history of the mid 20th Century.

Did the Spitfire really exist?

Was Churchill actually a woman?

Could the Battle of Britain have been fought elsewhere and still been the Battle of Britain?

Is swing band leader Glenn Miller actually still alive and playing Hip Hop somewhere in East LA?

Could the P51 Mustang destroy ships as large as heavy cruisers with just 0.50 cal ?

Why were the air battles of the period fought at high altitude when contemporary online evidence suggests the best altitude to dogfight is below 500 meters?

But foremost of these questions that have stumped academics, philosophers and historians for many years is "DID WW2 actually happen?".

Was it all nothing more than a conspiracy on the part of the major nations to lead the world out of the great depression and into the glorious times known as the "1950's".

Stay tuned to UBI for revelations that will astound you and shock you. Only on ubi.com

P.FunkAdelic
10-08-2008, 12:54 AM
I didn't recall Hidenburg having a roll in the Beer Hall Putsch. I thought that he just appointed Hitler Chancellor years later. To my recollection it was only Ludendorff who stood with Hitler in his abysmally unsuccessful coup attempt.

M_Gunz
10-08-2008, 02:04 AM
Originally posted by ar****e:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by SeaFireLIV:
I think WW2 was WW1 continued. So it should be called WW1.1 No, see Italy changed sides. That's why they decided to call it WWII. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

LOL! My vote for best answer!

M_Gunz
10-08-2008, 02:07 AM
Originally posted by WTE_Galway:
Didn't Naom Chomsky suggest at one stage that the current wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were actually part of the one ongoing war that included Korea and Vietnam ??

To tell the truth, while I've heard many references to Chomsky the fact is I've never read
his material that I know of except quotes here and there. Should I? He's supposed to be
something of a name in some circles, awards even.

P.FunkAdelic
10-08-2008, 03:04 AM
Originally posted by M_Gunz:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WTE_Galway:
Didn't Naom Chomsky suggest at one stage that the current wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were actually part of the one ongoing war that included Korea and Vietnam ??

To tell the truth, while I've heard many references to Chomsky the fact is I've never read
his material that I know of except quotes here and there. Should I? He's supposed to be
something of a name in some circles, awards even. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
It depends on how you react to somewhat radical thinking. He's the exception to the 'if you're young you're liberal and you're old you're conservative' rule. Kind of a poli-sci philosopher and policy commentator/critic. Expounds ideas of Anarchism (true functional anarchism, not that blackest day chaos stuff)and has all kinds of points of view on foreign policy, namely the US. Frankly if you're just right of centre you could really hate his guts to the extreme. Any more right wing and you probably can't listen without getting fired up.

He's worth a look though, just so you know him. He's a significant thinker in our time, even if you totally disagree with everything he believes.

Kurfurst__
10-08-2008, 03:53 AM
Originally posted by Buzzsaw-:
Salute

Silly subject, which has been given some life by posters...

It is a little known fact that the war objectives of the Germans in WWI were very similar to those of the Nazis in WWII. The German government was looking for 'Lebensraum', in much the same way as Hitler.

Little known indeed. Generations of historians have been systematically fooled about the One True Intent.
In fact, they kept it in such a secrecy, that only you possess the knowledge of it. Even Captain Blackadder was fooled.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uh0rgwqZOxY

hsj43
10-08-2008, 04:08 AM
The old days was diff ww1 ww2 wont see that again. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/crackwhip.gif

P.FunkAdelic
10-08-2008, 04:38 AM
Originally posted by hsj43:
The old days was diff ww1 ww2 wont see that again. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/crackwhip.gif
Thats what they said during WW1/2 about horses and standing upright while someone aimed at you.

VVS-Manuc
10-08-2008, 04:47 AM
Originally posted by Buzzsaw-:
Salute

Silly subject, which has been given some life by posters...

It is a little known fact that the war objectives of the Germans in WWI were very similar to those of the Nazis in WWII.

The German government was looking for 'Lebensraum', in much the same way as Hitler. The Imperial German Government intended to permanently annex Poland, the Ukraine and Western Russia, and repopulate the area with Germans, who would act as overseers to the mass of Russian or Ukrainian serfs. In the west they intended to annex Luxembourg, and parts of Belgium, as well as more of the frontier areas of France.

The one difference would be that the Imperial German Gov't did not plan a holacaust versus the Jews or other so-called 'untermensch'. Jews served throughout the armed forces, even in senior positions. There was a lot of anti-semitism, (there was even more in France during the same period) but it did not exist as an officially sanctioned policy.

After the war, the most powerful person in WWI Germany, Gen. Erich Ludendorff, who with Gen. Paul Von Hindenberg, controlled pretty much all aspects of Germany's war effort from August 1916, was enlisted by Hitler as a participant in the abortive 1923 putsch attempt. Ludendorff's support had earlier been instrumental in the creation and growth of the Nazi party, and Hitler's role as leader. Later Ludendorff rejected Hitler, too late.

The Nazi Party and its ideology was only part of the reason for the Second World War, the culture of German Militarism, carried over from WWI and before, was also a large factor.

Interesting. In which parallel universe happened this alternative history ?

joeap
10-08-2008, 08:46 AM
Originally posted by VVS-Manuc:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Buzzsaw-:
Salute

Silly subject, which has been given some life by posters...

It is a little known fact that the war objectives of the Germans in WWI were very similar to those of the Nazis in WWII.

The German government was looking for 'Lebensraum', in much the same way as Hitler. The Imperial German Government intended to permanently annex Poland, the Ukraine and Western Russia, and repopulate the area with Germans, who would act as overseers to the mass of Russian or Ukrainian serfs. In the west they intended to annex Luxembourg, and parts of Belgium, as well as more of the frontier areas of France.

The one difference would be that the Imperial German Gov't did not plan a holacaust versus the Jews or other so-called 'untermensch'. Jews served throughout the armed forces, even in senior positions. There was a lot of anti-semitism, (there was even more in France during the same period) but it did not exist as an officially sanctioned policy.

After the war, the most powerful person in WWI Germany, Gen. Erich Ludendorff, who with Gen. Paul Von Hindenberg, controlled pretty much all aspects of Germany's war effort from August 1916, was enlisted by Hitler as a participant in the abortive 1923 putsch attempt. Ludendorff's support had earlier been instrumental in the creation and growth of the Nazi party, and Hitler's role as leader. Later Ludendorff rejected Hitler, too late.

The Nazi Party and its ideology was only part of the reason for the Second World War, the culture of German Militarism, carried over from WWI and before, was also a large factor.

Interesting. In which parallel universe happened this alternative history ? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

+1

WOLFPLAYER2007
10-08-2008, 09:00 AM
Originally posted by ar****e:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by SeaFireLIV:
I think WW2 was WW1 continued. So it should be called WW1.1 No, see Italy changed sides. That's why they decided to call it WWII. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, they did not changed sides, the US invaded the south of the country and all the military power that was there became coo-belligerent with the allies, the North continued to fight along with the Nazis till may 1945.

M_Gunz
10-08-2008, 09:40 AM
Uhhhh Wolf? You might double-check what side Italy was on in WWI.
Just sayin, as compared to start of WWII (if there was one that is).

Blutarski2004
10-08-2008, 09:52 AM
Originally posted by M_Gunz:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WTE_Galway:
Didn't Naom Chomsky suggest at one stage that the current wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were actually part of the one ongoing war that included Korea and Vietnam ??

To tell the truth, while I've heard many references to Chomsky the fact is I've never read
his material that I know of except quotes here and there. Should I? He's supposed to be
something of a name in some circles, awards even. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


..... Noam Chomsky is a professor of semantics at MIT, who has made a name of sorts among the radical political left by arguing that everything wrong in the universe can be directly traced to the rampant evil of the American imperialist colossus. But he does think that Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge were really decent guys in actuality.

A reading of his various works, coupled with some judicious fact-checking of his claims, will rapidly lead to the conclusion that Chomsky is either an intellectually unprincipled ideologue or a complete lunatic.

As if that isn't enough, we have another "celebrity Marxist", Howard Zinn, in residence as a professor of history at Boston University on the other side of the Charles River from Chomsky. Read Zinn's "People's History of the United States" and you will learn that the US has never performed a good deed in the entire three centuries of its existence.

WOLFPLAYER2007
10-08-2008, 09:57 AM
Originally posted by M_Gunz:
Uhhhh Wolf? You might double-check what side Italy was on in WWI.
Just sayin, as compared to start of WWII (if there was one that is).

I know very little about Italy, but everything that I KNOW is that Italy in ww2 did not change sides, they were FORCED to fight for the allies in the south, and when Mussolini created the facist state on the North of the country, they fought the americans and their allies along with the germans, and i know that the ANR was the only axis air force present over there.

Thats all i know.

M_Gunz
10-08-2008, 10:01 AM
On Chomsky and the California East crowd: Oh. Never mind.

Wolf -- Italy was ALLIED in WWI and started WWII as FASCIST.
As far as forced to fight for the Allies... ummmmmmmmm.......

Blutarski2004
10-08-2008, 10:07 AM
Is there a confusion between "A Place in the Sun" and "Lebensraum"?

There were certain fringe political movements in pre-WW1 Germany who forwarded ideas of Aryan racial superiority and a sort of German "manifest destiny" with respect to expansion into the Slavic regions of Europe, but AFAIK it was not by any means a part of imperial German foreign policy.

Also worth noting - Poland did not exist at this period in history. Modern Poland was created from lands carved out of Imperial Russia, Germany and Austria-Hungary by the allies as part of the Versailles Treaty process, as were Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania.

WOLFPLAYER2007
10-08-2008, 10:07 AM
Originally posted by M_Gunz:
On Chomsky and the California East crowd: Oh. Never mind.

Wolf -- Italy was ALLIED in WWI and started WWII as FASCIST.
As far as forced to fight for the Allies... ummmmmmmmm.......

As i said Gunz, i know very little about Italy and WW1, im a WW2 guy...so dont ask me much about ww1 because my knowledgment about it is rather poor.

Aaron_GT
10-08-2008, 10:17 AM
and the British were dropping leaflets

And developing its nightfighters, installing radar, putting more monoplane fighters into action and fitting them with better propellors, speeding on development of the P.13/36 abd B.13/36 bombers, No. 4 rifle, Bren improvements, etc., expanding the armed forces rapidly, etc. and sinking German warships... There was plenty of stuff going on, ditto for the French (e.g. S-35 ptoduction).

SeaFireLIV
10-08-2008, 10:38 AM
Originally posted by Buzzsaw-:
Salute

Silly subject, which has been given some life by posters...

.

Actually if someone else had posted this I`d probably have said, "This is the most ridiculous thread post I`ve ever had the misfortune to witness!"

Although maybe not since I did see in a documentary someone call WW2, WW1 continued with a 20 year break.

Anyway, it`s better than `Did BOB actually happen?`

Hmmm, praising my own thread... scary. Very scary.

K_Freddie
10-08-2008, 10:43 AM
Phoney War - Hitler had expended all/most his fuel reserves in the attack on Poland. He had no gas to continue, so had to build up reserves.

There's a lot of speculation, that if the then allies , Britain and France, had attacked Germany at this point they would have won the war in 1939/40. This never happened and so never was Germany to be so weak again until some 5 years later.

Interesting 'IF' stuff.
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

M_Gunz
10-08-2008, 10:45 AM
Originally posted by WOLFPLAYER2007:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by M_Gunz:
On Chomsky and the California East crowd: Oh. Never mind.

Wolf -- Italy was ALLIED in WWI and started WWII as FASCIST.
As far as forced to fight for the Allies... ummmmmmmmm.......

As i said Gunz, i know very little about Italy and WW1, im a WW2 guy...so dont ask me much about ww1 because my knowledgment about it is rather poor. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oh well. Since Italy started WWI on a different side than WWII, there was the switch.

IMO there were a lot of Italians not exactly happy with fascism esp by 1943.
I'm pretty sure the same could be said of many Germans.

I had a teacher who left Germany in 1939 after graduating HS and came to join the US Army.
He fought in the Philippines as a special forces LT.
I asked and told him "just to be sure I knew his reason for leaving Germany... why?" which
he understood, being a very reasonable and thoughtful man and he said "because of that nut
Hitler!". Yeah, I could have assumed I knew but guessing wouldn't have been so good!

Jediteo
10-08-2008, 10:48 AM
Some historians during the 60's and 70s posed the same question, however a lot of their logic is severly faulty. The European part of it may have been quite similar, but it was a world war, involving other facets of conflict than just Britain,France,Russia and Germany.

Not only did two of the large powers in WW1 not participe in the war (Ottoman empire and Austria Hungary), but the reasons why the war started was entirely different from that of the first world war. WWII was an entirely different war, however the consequences of the first war did affect the latter.
However, the question is rather complex and is beyond the scope of this forum.

arjisme
10-08-2008, 10:50 AM
Originally posted by WOLFPLAYER2007:
I know very little about Italy, but everything that I KNOW is that Italy in ww2 did not change sides[...] Might want to re-read what was posted previously. No one in this thread said they changed sides in WWII. They did fight with the Allies in WWI though.

It was a joke anyway, but you've managed to misunderstand it.

M_Gunz
10-08-2008, 10:51 AM
Hungarians didn't fight in which?

joeap
10-08-2008, 12:37 PM
Originally posted by ar****e:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WOLFPLAYER2007:
I know very little about Italy, but everything that I KNOW is that Italy in ww2 did not change sides[...] Might want to re-read what was posted previously. No one in this thread said they changed sides in WWII. They did fight with the Allies in WWI though.

It was a joke anyway, but you've managed to misunderstand it. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think it might be more accurate to say that Italy went through a kind of civil war,as did France and others. No one FORCED the many (mostly communist or leftwing) partisans to fight the Germans in the North for example. Most Italians in fact were fed up of the war by this point so you should not exaggerate the popularity of the Salo Republic (the Pro-Nazi puppet state in the North).

Buzzsaw-
10-08-2008, 01:32 PM
Salute

In response to those uninformed about Germany's WWI war aims:

Here is the area PERMANENTLY ceded to Germany and Austro-Hungary by the newly formed Soviet Government in the Treaty of Brest Litovsk, signed on March 3rd 1917. Germany was the senior partner in the Alliance, had contributed most to the defeat of the Russian/Soviets, and would take the lion's share of the territory. Notice how the area is similar in scope to what the Germans conquered in WWII.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8a/Armisticebrestlitovsk.jpg

Following is a link to a transcript of a discussion between Ludendorff, Hindenberg, and the Kaiser on May 11 1918, (who by 1918 had become essentially a figurehead) regarding Germany's war aims in the East. The discussion revolves around the weakness of the Austro Hungarian Empire, the possibility of it splitting into component parts, and the effect that will have on the existing agreements between Germany and the old Austro Hungarian Empire. Originally Austro-Hungary had been promised control of the Polish area, but now there is talk of repudiating that agreement, with Germany taking control of the Puppet state, and with a permanent corridor along the Baltic coast being ceded to Germany to allow access to the Ukrainian and Baltic state possessions which had been gained in the Treaty of Brest Litovsk. There is also talk of a 'Military Alliance' with Austro Hungary, with integrated armed forces, as well as a customs union, the first step to a permanent union of the countries. (a early version of 'Greater Germany') There is also talk about future moves into the Caucasus, Persia, and the Middle East.

Link:

http://germanhistorydocs.ghi-dc.org/pdf/eng/1004_%203%2...me%20Command_191.pdf (http://germanhistorydocs.ghi-dc.org/pdf/eng/1004_%203%20Supreme%20Command_191.pdf)

As regards, whether or not Poland existed, obviously it didn't formally exist, being a part of the Russian Empire since 1815 and the Treaty of Vienna, but the Polish people were a distinct and separate entity, as anyone who has studied history may notice. Ask any Pole whether they were happy having been annexed by either the Russians or Germans and you'd get a negative.

In regards to the planned annexation of Belgium:

The following is a link to a .pdf of number of articles which report the discussions postwar in the German Parliament, wherein then German Premier Bauer tabled documents relating to the war aims of Ludendorff and Hindenberg.

Those documents revealed the aims involved the permanent ceding of the Liege area of Belgium to Germany, and the economic union of the rest of Belgium with Germany. (with the defacto result that Belgium would become little more than a province)

http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=9F06E...4850DFB1668382609EDE (http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=9F06E2D61638E13ABC4850DFB1668382609EDE)

Additionally documents which came to light after the war, and which were detailed in the book, "Wielding the Dagger" by Mark D Karau, indicate that German Chancellor Michaelis, in 1917 was told by the head of the Navy that Germany must retain control of the Belgian coast postwar, and that the Navy required this area so that they could develop a series of Naval bases, with a focus on Antwerp. The book also notes the intention of the Germans to split Belgium into two parts, Flanders and Wallonia, which would become puppet states of Germany. This splitting of Belgium into two states based on the ethnic divisions, was exactly what was implemented by Nazi Germany in WWII.

Link to online version of book:

http://books.google.com/books?id=4feIJouYEZEC&pg=PA183&...&ct=result#PPA184,M1 (http://books.google.com/books?id=4feIJouYEZEC&pg=PA183&lpg=PA183&dq=Ludendorff+war+aims+Germany&source=web&ots=v6VKtEByI_&sig=uEgOTsqU2MHQ75pis89tXgv5Se0&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=6&ct=result#PPA184,M1)

Erich Ludendorff was instrumental in bringing forward an expansionist policy for Imperial Germany, and as mentioned previously in this thread, he was also instrumental in the formation and mainstream acceptance of the Nazi party postwar.

The Germans also wanted an expansion of their colonial empire, with the entire area of Central Africa being ceded to them. Following is an article which originally appeared in the neutral Dutch press reporting the comments of Dr Solf, German Minister responsible for the Colonies, regarding the territories Germany would require to be ceded:

http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=9B02E...4D51DFBE668383609EDE (http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=9B02E6DE1439E13ABC4D51DFBE668383609EDE)

All of these facts point towards the conclusion that Imperial Germany's territorial aims were remarkably similar to those of Nazi Germany, and the only major difference between the Militarists of Imperial Germany and the Nazis, was the program of Racial genocide advocated by the Nazis.

The fact is, there is a clear link, both physically and in their aims, between the Militarists who dominated Imperial Germany and the Nazis who followed them.

M_Gunz
10-08-2008, 01:40 PM
As opposed to world domination by the super race.. "tomorrow the world".
Not quite the same goal.

Hoatee
10-08-2008, 02:16 PM
But naturally and undoubtedly without any stretch of the imagination did WW2 take place 'cos it was a world war too just as much WWI was.

Choctaw111
10-08-2008, 02:42 PM
I haven't done any research on this, but it seems that both of these world wars were caused by different things. The world is always in a state of tension, and there will be periods of "peace" between wars.
The fact that recorded civilization has gone for thousands of years without a world war, and before Columbus, a "known world" war, and then in the space of 25 years humanity has two of them, does seem a bit remarkable. Perhaps a bit more tension during that time than any other in history.
How many wars have happened since then? Big ones and small ones, many have died. It is only a matter of time till the world in enveloped in another.

Buzzsaw-
10-08-2008, 02:45 PM
Salute

Ludendorff was also responsible for the false legend of the 'stab in the back', ie. that the war was lost because of traitors at home, a legend which was exploited by the Nazis to their profit.

Shortly after the armistice, Ludendorff was forced out, and was in the presence of a British General when he heard that the Kaiser had abdicated and that the German Parliament had proclaimed a Republic.

On being asked by the British General:

'Are you endeavoring to tell me general, that you were stabbed in the hack? Ludendorff replied with alacrity: "That's it! They gave me a stab in the back--a stab in the back!"

Subsequent to that, he met Hitler, encouraged him in his political aims, and the formation of the Nazi party.

Woke_Up_Dead
10-08-2008, 03:59 PM
Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">and the British were dropping leaflets

And developing its nightfighters, installing radar, putting more monoplane fighters into action and fitting them with better propellors, speeding on development of the P.13/36 abd B.13/36 bombers, No. 4 rifle, Bren improvements, etc., expanding the armed forces rapidly, etc. and sinking German warships... There was plenty of stuff going on, ditto for the French (e.g. S-35 ptoduction). </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

In short, they were re-arming and modernizing their army which is not the same as a war (except for the handful of German warships sunk), that's why that period was called "The Phoney War."

Woke_Up_Dead
10-08-2008, 04:02 PM
Originally posted by K_Freddie:
Phoney War - Hitler had expended all/most his fuel reserves in the attack on Poland. He had no gas to continue, so had to build up reserves.

There's a lot of speculation, that if the then allies , Britain and France, had attacked Germany at this point they would have won the war in 1939/40. This never happened and so never was Germany to be so weak again until some 5 years later.

Interesting 'IF' stuff.
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

Jodl said as much at the Nuremberg trials: " [...] if we did not collapse already in the year 1939 that was due only to the fact that during the Polish campaign, the approximately 110 French and British divisions in the West were held completely inactive against the 23 German divisions"

WTE_Galway
10-08-2008, 04:18 PM
Originally posted by M_Gunz:

IMO there were a lot of Italians not exactly happy with fascism esp by 1943.



Yeah, I suspect part of the reason the Italians sometimes performed quite poorly on the ground in WWII was many of the troops were not fascists and disliked Mussolini and had no enthusiasm for his war at all. Its difficult to motivate heroic self sacrifice in troops that think they are fighting for the wrong side.

Aaron_GT
10-08-2008, 04:22 PM
Woke_Up_Dead:

In short, they were re-arming and modernizing their army which is not the same as a war (except for the handful of German warships sunk), that's why that period was called "The Phoney War."

Preparation for attack is an important part of war (see Sun Tzu). In any case the UK and France were expecting war in 1940 and were not ready in 1939. They were employed on some active tasks in 1939-40, though, Graf Spee being an obvious example.

Choctaw111:

The fact that recorded civilization has gone for thousands of years without a world war, and before Columbus, a "known world" war, and then in the space of 25 years humanity has two of them, does seem a bit remarkable. Perhaps a bit more tension during that time than any other in history.

I'd argue the 20th century was different possibly due to the advent of faster communications and denser populations.

Certainly the series of interconnected wars in the 18th and early 19th centuries ecompassed all the major land masses engaged in WW1 and WW2 bar Australasia (the latter had few Europeans in it to get involved). Even the pre-Bolivarian uprisings in South America had a Napoleonic connection.

You could argue that WW2 was actually three or four partially concurrent wars (Allies v Axis, Axis v USSR, Japan v China, Japan v Western Allies) so not -so- much different from the series of Napleonic-era wars.

Blutarski2004
10-08-2008, 04:23 PM
Buzzsaw,

What Germany took from Russia in 1918 after Lenin and the Bolsheviks sued for peace does not make a case that expansion into the East consituted German foreign policy or political strategy in August 1914. It DOES make sense, however, for a nation which had been under a debilitating blockade for four years. There were certainly pre-war German nationalist groups that conceptually pressed such a notions, but they in no way spoke for the government. Imperial Gernmany's greatest geo-political concern was its status as a relative latecomer in the race for colonial empire.

AS regards the "stab in the back", look at things from the point of view of the army fighting at the front. 1917 and 1918 were years of great labor strikes and civil unrest in Germany, much of instigated by radical socialist and bolshevik agitators. It's hardly surprising that the army took a dim view of such behavior while they were fighting and dying at the front. It's not unreasonable to speculate that Ludendorff's post-war argument about the "stab in the back" was an attempt, conscious or unconscious, to assuage his own sense of responsbility for Germany's defeat. But, given what had been occurring on the German front in 1917/1918, the idea is not wholly without merit. For example, the navy went into mutiny in August 1918 and refused to put to sea. And soldiers returning from the front after the armistice were being assaulted and even murdered [as was one famous German fighter ace] by armed Bolshevik gangs.

Ludendorff suffered a nervous breakdown in late [Oct IIRC] 1918, unable to come to grips with the fact that Germany had been defeated. His mental paralysis was holding up the essential process of establishing an armistics to hopefully save the government and Wilhelm was finally convinced [by von Baden?] to move Ludendorff out of the way.

For what it's worth. Not looking to start a flame war.

Viper2005_
10-08-2008, 04:25 PM
Originally posted by SeaFireLIV:
No really.


Think about it. WW1 was with the Germans, right? WW2 was with the Germans too. And they were both world wars. And everyone who fought them, fought them again, Brits, US, Russians... It`s like we just had a rest inbetween... then carried on a bit later...


I think WW2 was WW1 continued. So it should be called WW1.1


I`ll get back to my artwork then, while getting my coat.

Surely the Napoleonic wars qualify as World Wars?

Haven't there been other, reasonably global conflicts? Afterall, I can't think of a single war in which nobody was neutral, so the "World War" bar can't be that high...

As such, until we define to everybody's satisfaction exactly what we mean by WWII, isn't this thread putting the cart before the horse?

Aaron_GT
10-08-2008, 04:35 PM
Jodl said as much at the Nuremberg trials: " [...] if we did not collapse already in the year 1939 that was due only to the fact that during the Polish campaign, the approximately 110 French and British divisions in the West were held completely inactive against the 23 German divisions"

It's a little inaccurate, and in a sense he is laying blame for a long WW2 with the UK and France as a form of defence.

At the time of the attack on Poland and the thin cover of 23 divisions there were not 110 British and French divisions available as they had to be mobilised and equipped and organise. By the time this was done Poland had been defeated, although this still meant some divisions tied down in policing. But it meant that any attack launched later (say late October 1939) would have been late in the year for a campaign and would have had to have been a Blitzkrieg to have defeated Germany before it could have brought back troops from Poland and so would have been risky. What made more sense was a spring campaign, with forces strengthened, and so you have provactive moves with regard to Norway in the early Spring, after which all hell breaks loose.

In hindsight a late October 1939 allied attack might have work, but that is with hindsight.

Buzzsaw-
10-08-2008, 04:44 PM
Originally posted by Blutarski2004:
Buzzsaw,

What Germany took from Russia in 1918 after Lenin and the Bolsheviks sued for peace does not make a case that expansion into the East consituted German foreign policy or political strategy in August 1914. It DOES make sense, however, for a nation which had been under a debilitating blockade for four years. There were certainly pre-war German nationalist groups that conceptually pressed such a notions, but they in no way spoke for the government. Imperial Gernmany's greatest geo-political concern was its status as a relative latecomer in the race for colonial empire.

AS regards the "stab in the back", look at things from the point of view of the army fighting at the front. 1917 and 1918 were years of great labor strikes and civil unrest in Germany, much of instigated by radical socialist and bolshevik agitators. It's hardly surprising that the army took a dim view of such behavior while they were fighting and dying at the front. It's not unreasonable to speculate that Ludendorff's post-war argument about the "stab in the back" was an attempt, conscious or unconscious, to assuage his own sense of responsbility for Germany's defeat. But, given what had been occurring on the German front in 1917/1918, the idea is not wholly without merit. For example, the navy went into mutiny in August 1918 and refused to put to sea. And soldiers returning from the front after the armistice were being assaulted and even murdered [as was one famous German fighter ace] by armed Bolshevik gangs.

Ludendorff suffered a nervous breakdown in late [Oct IIRC] 1918, unable to come to grips with the fact that Germany had been defeated. His mental paralysis was holding up the essential process of establishing an armistics to hopefully save the government and Wilhelm was finally convinced [by von Baden?] to move Ludendorff out of the way.

For what it's worth. Not looking to start a flame war.

With respect:

While obviously you are not preaching a Nazi ideology, your above comments posit the same arguments used by the Nazis to justify re-armament, racial genocide and the expansionist policy of WWII Germany.

Those arguments are a myth. The idea that 'Strikes and Bolsheviks' brought down Imperial Germany is patently false.

In fact, nearly the entire German political spectrum, including the centrist parties, had recognized from August 1918 that the Germans had lost the war, and were pushing for peace. Only Ludendorff, Hindenberg, and other Militarists and the threat of Army suppression of the parliament prevented the replacement of the deeply unpopular Chancellor Michaelis with someone who would begin negotiations.

The entire German population was suffering under the extreme rationing imposed by Ludendorff, malnutrition was beginning to affect children in a serious way, and the ordinary German wanted nothing to do with a war anymore.

The Centrist Government which replaced Michaelis were the ones who initiated a request for an armistice.

As far as Ludendorff's 'nervous breakdown'...

The man was a consumate egotist, and couldn't bear to acknowledge his responsibility, to avoid the shame of being the German who offered an Armistice, he resigned. Even his successors in the army, demanded that civilians be the ones who carried the proposals to the Allies, and refused to accept the German army had failed in any way.

The real facts were, the German Army had been defeated in the field.

After August 8th, "..the Black day of the German Army." as Ludendorff himself called it, when the Canadian and Australian lead attacks smashed through the German lines into open country at Amiens, the Germans had been in continuous retreat, defending without prepared defense lines, and without any chance of stopping the Allied advance.

The Armistice did nothing but avoid the reality of an impending advance directly into Germany proper, it was not some plot concocted by left wingers and bolsheviks to sabotage the army.... what a lie that was, and remains.

As far as expansion to the east, and into Belgium, those policies were expressed as early as Jan. 1915 by the German gov't of the time. Ludendorff and Hindenberg controlled the state from mid 1916, and their intentions are clear.

WTE_Galway
10-08-2008, 04:50 PM
Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Jodl said as much at the Nuremberg trials: " [...] if we did not collapse already in the year 1939 that was due only to the fact that during the Polish campaign, the approximately 110 French and British divisions in the West were held completely inactive against the 23 German divisions"

It's a little inaccurate, and in a sense he is laying blame for a long WW2 with the UK and France as a form of defence.

At the time of the attack on Poland and the thin cover of 23 divisions there were not 110 British and French divisions available as they had to be mobilised and equipped and organise. By the time this was done Poland had been defeated, although this still meant some divisions tied down in policing. But it meant that any attack launched later (say late October 1939) would have been late in the year for a campaign and would have had to have been a Blitzkrieg to have defeated Germany before it could have brought back troops from Poland and so would have been risky. What made more sense was a spring campaign, with forces strengthened, and so you have provactive moves with regard to Norway in the early Spring, after which all hell breaks loose.

In hindsight a late October 1939 allied attack might have work, but that is with hindsight. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Early war German forces could relocate quite quickly.

There was more motorised infantry than most other armies had at the time. The original design briefs for the panzers specified they should be capable of traveling German roads including bridges at high speed without damage to either tanks or roads and bridges (they also interestingly specified the turret be able to fully rotate within the bounds of the tank width). Artillery was still horse drawn but thats what railways are for.

Blutarski2004
10-08-2008, 05:28 PM
Originally posted by Buzzsaw-:
With respect:

While obviously you are not preaching a Nazi ideology, your above comments posit the same arguments used by the Nazis to justify re-armament, racial genocide and the expansionist policy of WWII Germany. Those arguments are a myth.

..... Indeed they did. But the reason they resonated was because they really did occur. There in fact was widespread labor unrest and socialist/bolshevik political agitation from 1917 onward. The bolsheviks did attempt to seize control of the reins of government in the German states. And German troops returning home from the front were confronted by armed civil unrest that evolved into a vicious civil war. Because unavory or evil people enlist real events to argue their case does not make those events mythical or untrue.



The idea that 'Strikes and Bolsheviks' brought down Imperial Germany is patently false.

..... You're entitled to your opinion on that point. I myself am uncertain to what degree they actually did influence events. But the important thing is not what you or I believe; it is what the German army leadership and troops returning from the front believed after they came home. Perception, perhaps even self-delusion, is a powerful psychological force.



In fact, nearly the entire German political spectrum, including the centrist parties, had recognized from August 1918 that the Germans had lost the war, and were pushing for peace. Only Ludendorff, Hindenberg, and other Militarists and the threat of Army suppression of the parliament prevented the replacement of the deeply unpopular Chancellor Michaelis with someone who would begin negotiations.

..... How did the German home political front feel about the war over the twenty month period preceding August 1918? After the Russian collapse and surrender? After the conquest of Romania? After Caporetto? After the successes of the Spring 1918 offensives?



The entire German population was suffering under the extreme rationing imposed by Ludendorff, malnutrition was beginning to affect children in a serious way, and the ordinary German wanted nothing to do with a war anymore.

..... I'm sure that's true. It's human nature.



The Centrist Government which replaced Michaelis were the ones who initiated a request for an armistice.

..... Perhaps so. But nothing was going to happen until Wilhelm had been convinced that Germany had indeed lost the war. He was the only person in Germany [short of an assassin] who could remove Ludendorff from his position of effective control over the German national war effort. And it took a good deal of argument to convince Wilhelm that the jig was finally up.



As far as Ludendorff's 'nervous breakdown'... The man was a consumate egotist, and couldn't bear to acknowledge his responsibility, to avoid the shame of being the German who offered an Armistice, he resigned. Even his successors in the army, demanded that civilians be the ones who carried the proposals to the Allies, and refused to accept the German army had failed in any way.

..... I don't disagree. But one might reasonably argue that, while the surrender of a corps or an army is a military responsibility, the surrender of a nation [for that is what the armistice request really represented] is a responsibility of the national government.



The real facts were, the German Army had been defeated in the field.

..... I don't disagree. But it doesn't exclude the possibility that home front conditions in 1917/1918 were a contributory factor to one degree or another.



The Armistice did nothing but avoid the reality of an impending advance directly into Germany proper, it was not some plot concocted by left wingers and bolsheviks to sabotage the army.... what a lie that was, and remains.

..... I don't believe that I'm arguing that the armistice was a bolshevik plot.



As far as expansion to the east, and into Belgium, those policies were expressed as early as Jan. 1915 by the German gov't of the time. Ludendorff and Hindenberg controlled the state from mid 1916, and their intentions are clear.

..... Perhaps so. But those positions [annexing Belgium and European Russia] did not reflect German >>pre-war<< foreign policy, which is what has been my argument.

Woke_Up_Dead
10-08-2008, 05:38 PM
Originally posted by WTE_Galway:

Early war German forces could relocate quite quickly.

There was more motorised infantry than most other armies had at the time.

I was under the impression that throughout the war out of the major participants only the British and the American armies had more motorized vehicles than horses; even the Germans were still reliant on slower horses to move troops around.

Still, I think the decision in the west not to go to a real war and persist with a "Phoney War" for months had more to do with political will than logistics, at least initially. The French were still traumatized by their Pyrrhic victory in WWI and did not want to carry the brunt of any possible fighting in the fall of 1939 when they felt so safe and secure behind the Maginot line (the British army at the time was small and would have taken a long time to get to France). The British also had just lost many men a generation before over a conflict that started far away; it must have been hard to quickly switch from Chamberlain's naive optimism to Churchill's much darker realism and load the planes with bombs rather than paper.

Aaron_GT
10-09-2008, 07:17 AM
Still, I think the decision in the west not to go to a real war and persist with a "Phoney War" for months had more to do with political will than logistics

If the desire was to avoid war then not declaring war would have been the appopriate course of action. In reality Chamberlain had to lobby against considerable opposition and pull all sorts of strings to be able to bring the UK into declaring war on Germany in September 1939, which somewhat cuts across his image as an appeaser. I am sure he would have liked to avoid war (even Churchill said the same in the 1930s) but given his role in pushing through rearmament I don't get the impression he had naieve optimism, although he may well have believed his spin over Munich too much.

I'd agree that there was plenty of political opposition to an attack, though. Whilst enough had been overcome to declare war it was still a difficult sell and plenty hoped the problem would go away in some way, it seems.

Interestingly there was an agent-based modelling exercise (glorified automated wargaming) on a possible 1938 French and British attack on Germany as a Munich response and the upshot was that the chances of allied success would have been low. I haven't heard of anything in terms of repeating this for a 1939 attack in October 1939, but it would be interesting to see what they would be. It could be that it was a missed opportunity after all (altough they didn't have access to such a modelling process in 1939).

In terms of Confetti bombing bear in mind that it was presumed that any attack on London would lead to mass civilian casualties. London is relatively closer to bases in Western Germany than Berlin is to bases in the Eastern part of the UK so it was felt that the deterrent effect of attacks on Berlin would be much less as smaller loads could be carried by the Wellingtons and Whitleys at that range, plus there was a huge fear of the use of gas. The P.13/36 and B.13/36 bombers that were explicitly intended to have a range to attack Berlin with a large load weren't anticipated until 1940. Basically it was assumed that a bombing campaign would become a mututal bombing of civilians in the respective capitals with the RAF not being able to deliver as much tonnage as the Luftwaffe, hence the UK losing. It doesn't mean that this assumption was necessarily correct, but this was what the assessments of the time indicated and this is what the decisions were based on.

Woke_Up_Dead
10-09-2008, 11:44 AM
Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Still, I think the decision in the west not to go to a real war and persist with a "Phoney War" for months had more to do with political will than logistics

[...]
I'd agree that there was plenty of political opposition to an attack, though. Whilst enough had been overcome to declare war it was still a difficult sell and plenty hoped the problem would go away in some way, it seems.
[...]
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well there you go, that's where we agree. I simply think that this political opposition, the difficult sell, and the hope that the problem would go away had a bigger role in the inactivity during the September campaign and "Phoney War" than did any logistical and military factors.