Why the Third Reich worship?

submitted by Lugger from self.debatealtright

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]Lugger[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

Because the pact was entirely unenforceable during the 1933-1939 period.

But the history proved that it was, indeed, enforcable.

Hitler, who was being advised by him.

Well, in that case it means Hitler was even a bigger fool for blindly believing him.

The pact was also suicidal, so most talented diplomats and statesmen assumed Britain was bluffing, as per usual.

Care to elaborate how defending a country from aggression is "suicidal"?

The Brits were still the world's superpower by the time WW2 begun, in case you forgot.

If they didn't want to, they wouldn't have.

Exactly!

Finally, you seem to get.

They didn't want to and they didn't — Germany, predictably, turned out to be the aggressor.

They also had a treaty with Germany - you might know it, it's called the Versailles treaty. ...

I get your point, but you fail to consider the very fact you listed — that Germany had already broken multiple promises, and the Brits/French weren't always gonna tolerate the Moustache Man's bullshit.

And they didn't — Poland was the final straw.

The guy was basically playing with fire.

Very kind of you, to show you my gratitude I decided to provide some context.

And I once again returned the favor :)

all you've got is inane whining about the quality of SS troops

Whining?

More like acknowledging that by the end of the war the majority of SS divisions were of shit quality.

though in all likelihood you yourself are probably obese and uneducated

Please don't try to insult me again — you're too dense and naive for that :)

[–]NeoRail 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

But the history proved that it was, indeed, enforcable.

You mean to tell me that Britain and France preserved the territorial and political integrity of Poland?

Well, in that case it means Hitler was even a bigger fool for blindly believing him.

Ribbentrop was his foreign policy expert with connections in Britain, bro. Who would you have him rather believe?

Care to elaborate how defending a country from aggression is "suicidal"?

I refer you to the dissolution of the British Empire, the foreign debt it incurred as a result of the war and the rationing system it was forced to maintain all the way into the fifties.

The Brits were still the world's superpower by the time WW2 begun, in case you forgot.

No, not even close. They were powerful, but America had them considerably outmatched. At any case, they did not have the resources to contain Germany.

They didn't want to and they didn't — Germany, predictably, turned out to be the aggressor.

Don't you get tired of pretending to be stupid? Germany did not declare war on Britain or France. They declared war on Germany, because they chose to do so. The Polish guarantee was merely the justification they used. This is easily demonstrable because they disregarded a whole assortment of treaties and guarantees that they had given to other states prior to the war.

I get your point, but you fail to consider the very fact you listed — that Germany had already broken multiple promises, and the Brits/French weren't always gonna tolerate the Moustache Man's bullshit. And they didn't — Poland was the final straw. The guy was basically playing with fire.

States aren't people. They don't get upset or keep count of the number of times they've been wronged. They act according to their interests. The Allies backstabbed all of their dependants, including even Poland itself which they sold out to the Soviets. It's not that Hitler exhausted the patience of the Allies at Poland - it's rather that after acting wisely for most of the interwar period, the Allies finally decided to self-destruct and drag Germany down with them.

More like acknowledging that by the end of the war the majority of SS divisions were of shit quality.

"By the end of the war" it's difficult to describe any German division as a fitting match for enemy troops, which as I said early makes your "point" quite inane.

[–]Lugger[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

You mean to tell me that Britain and France preserved the territorial and political integrity of Poland?

By being 'enforcable' I meant the fact the the Brits, in the end, stayed true to their promises and declared war on Germany.

Not sure where you got that 'political integrity' take.

Ribbentrop was his foreign policy expert with connections in Britain, bro.

Should've chosen better foreign experts, than.

That's, of course, if we consider for a moment that his advise regarding Poland had any influence over Hitler.

I'm 100% sure he would've started the war anyway, given his previous actions and what we know about him and his ultimate goals.

I refer you to the dissolution of the British Empire, the foreign debt it incurred as a result of the war and the rationing system it was forced to maintain all the way into the fifties.

I doubt they considered long-term effects.

And even if they did, they most likely figured out that stopping Germany was more important.

No, not even close. They were powerful, but America had them considerably outmatched.

Not even close?

Yeah, it's true that British power — economic, military, whatever had already been waning by the time the war began.

But they still were an incredibly strong state, and there's this:

At any case, they did not have the resources to contain Germany.

Wrong, as always.

Germany was always short on resources, and it owes lasting for so long in the war to occupying pretty much all the Europe and exploiting its natural and industrial resources.

Their only hope was quickly defeating the Brits and their allies and pushing the former to the sea — which they did in 1940.

Germany did not declare war on Britain or France.

Germany invaded a state which was allied with those countries, and this is pretty much the same as declaring a war on them.

because they chose to do so

And they chose to do so this time because they were tired of Hitler's lies and broken promises; they figured out that he needed to be stopped because the bastard would just keep breaking treaties and acting aggressively.

This is easily demonstrable because they disregarded a whole assortment of treaties and guarantees that they had given to other states prior to the war.

You know what's funny?

You're this close to the truth, but you either ignore it or don't want to accept it.

Yes, Hitler broke every single previous treaty and the allies did nothing.

They believed that he would eventually stop, but he just kept screwing them and demanding new shit.

And the only reason they let him walk free with the previous ones was the fact that Allies didn't want another war in Europe to start, so they kept hoping that, maybe, this time Hitler will finally be satisfied.

...until 1939, when they figured out that he needed to be put down like the savage beast he was.

And still, you've only got Hitler's arrogance to blame for the fact that he believed in Britain cucking on its promises.

it's rather that after acting wisely for most of the interwar period, the Allies finally decided to self-destruct and drag Germany down with them.

You're not making any sense.

Allies fulfilling Hitler's demands was not 'acting wise', it was acting extremely stupid because it allowed Germany to gain more industrial power and time to fuel its military.

If the Allies decided to invade Germany, say, in 1936 (let's for the sake of argument assume that), they would have crushed it like a worm.

And considering the fact that Hitler was hellbent on starting a war, it would've been a wise decision — better kill the vicious beast when it's weak and starving than when it's at full strength.

Wait, your argument sounds so stupid that I need to clarify: do you really think it was 'wise' to surrender territories to Germany and let it gain strength only to fight the empowered Germany later?

If you think that declaring war on Germany after the invasion of Poland was stupid, than what do you think was wise?

Let them swallow it whole and become stronger again?

I'm really hoping I'm mistaken about you, I mean, I like you, but here you outdid yourself.

"By the end of the war" it's difficult to describe any German division as a fitting match for enemy troops, which as I said early makes your "point" quite inane.

Yeah, my 'by the end of the war' remark was pretty vague and I should've been more clear.

Fine. I meant by this mid 1944 period and onwards.

(yeah, it's not exactly 'by the end of the war', but then again, I apologize for not being clear enough)

[–]NeoRail 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

By being 'enforcable' I meant the fact the the Brits, in the end, stayed true to their promises and declared war on Germany. Not sure where you got that 'political integrity' take.

When you provide a security guarantee to a country, it is typically expected that you will be trying to secure the country rather than pick a fight with some third party. Was Polish security achieved by the end of the war? Moreover, you still have not addressed why the Allies refused to declare war on the Soviet Union when the Red Army invaded Poland shortly after the Germans. Did they honour the promise they made to Poland? What about their other promise to send in troops into Germany as soon as war broke out, rather than leave Poland to be crushed by Germany as they did historically during the phoney war?

Should've chosen better foreign experts, than. That's, of course, if we consider for a moment that his advise regarding Poland had any influence over Hitler. I'm 100% sure he would've started the war anyway, given his previous actions and what we know about him and his ultimate goals.

A war with Poland? Maybe, though only the British guarantee made that necessary. A world war? No, not at all.

I doubt they considered long-term effects. And even if they did, they most likely figured out that stopping Germany was more important.

Stopping Germany was more important than not destroying yourself? Why? Plenty of people thought otherwise - for example, there was the "Why die for Danzig?" campaign. Certainly, the politicians had a pretty good idea of what a world war entails, given the devastating shock the first world war gave to the British empire just twenty years prior. The Polish guarantee was suicidal.

Not even close? Yeah, it's true that British power — economic, military, whatever had already been waning by the time the war began. But they still were an incredibly strong state, and there's this:

Incredibly strong by what standard? They were just another European imperial state. There's nothing particularly outstanding about interwar Britain. America was in a class of its own, whereas all the European powers were already heavily reduced in strength as a result of the first war.

Wrong, as always. Germany was always short on resources, and it owes lasting for so long in the war to occupying pretty much all the Europe and exploiting its natural and industrial resources. Their only hope was quickly defeating the Brits and their allies and pushing the former to the sea — which they did in 1940.

Germany "owes" lasting as long as it did in the war to its rearmament programme and the natural strength of its state and people. Neither France nor Britain could hold Germany alone and that much was already proven in the first war. The difference is that while Britain and France burned through a massive portion of their resources, Germany's strength was more or less the same as it had very little to begin with, given its lack of colonial possessions and external markets. No pressure by the British or the French could direct German policy, even if they could muster the will to exert such pressure, which they failed to do.

Germany invaded a state which was allied with those countries, and this is pretty much the same as declaring a war on them.

Good god, that's insane. You mean to tell me that Britain and France were at war with Germany for a whole year after the invasion of Czechoslovakia and no one did anything at all? History sure is strange.

And they chose to do so this time because they were tired of Hitler's lies and broken promises; they figured out that he needed to be stopped because the bastard would just keep breaking treaties and acting aggressively.

You've not only ignored my point, but you've also written up a list of accusations that apply equally well to the Allies. They betrayed several of the countries they had promised to protect and they aggressively tried to encircle Germany in every conceivable way just for the sake of frustrating German foreign policy.

You know what's funny? You're this close to the truth, but you either ignore it or don't want to accept it. Yes, Hitler broken every single previous treaty and the allies did nothing. They believed that he would eventually stop, but he just kept screwing them and demanding new shit. And the only reason they let him walk free with the previous ones was the fact that Allies didn't want another war in Europe to start, so they kept hoping that, maybe, this time Hitler will finally be satisfied. ...until 1939, when they figured out that he needed to be put down like the savage beast he was. And still, you've only got Hitler's arrogance to blame for the fact that he believed in Britain cucking on its promises.

Are you really this naive? How do you reconcile the belief that the Allies were some sort of moral crusaders that just HAD to oppose Hitler, BUT at the same time sold out a bunch of their allies to Hitler in the name of peace, BUT they ran out of patience at Poland, for some reason? It's such a contorted way of thinking about the war. The much more likely explanation is that the Allies wanted war with Germany far more than vice versa, but were unable to procure the necessary internal unity to prosecute such a war until Poland. The Polish guarantee was merely an instrument to justify the war to the citizenry, nothing more than that. This is the reason why they engage in the phoney war, why they ignore the Soviet invasion of Poland and why they abandon Poland to indefinite occupation in the postwar period - because the French and British statesmen genuinely didn't care about Poland, even remotely, but rather aimed to wage war on Germany.

You're not making any sense. Allies fulfilling Hitler's demands was not 'acting wise', it was acting extremely stupid because it allowed Germany to gain more industrial power and time to fuel its military. If the Allies decided to invade Germany, say, in 1936 (let's for the sake of argument assume that), they would have crushed it like a worm. And considering the fact that Hitler was hellbent on starting a war, it would've been a wise decision — better kill the vicious beast when it's weak and starving than when it's at full strength. Wait, your argument sounds so stupid that I need to clarify: do you really think it was 'wise' to surrender territories to Germany and let it gain strength only to fight the empowered Germany later? If you think that declaring war on Germany after the invasion of Poland was stupid, than what do you think was wise? Let them swallow it whole and become stronger again? I'm really hoping I'm mistaken about you, I mean, I like you, but here you outdid yourself.

The Allies couldn't have possibly declared war on Germany in 1936, because their citizens would not have bothered to die for the sake of liberal warmongering without the necessary propaganda and manipulation of public opinion. If we consider the self-interest of the democratic powers, the wisest course of action would have been to let the Germans pursue their expansion policy towards the Soviet Union, since France and Britain only stood to lose from another conflict with Germany. Instead, the Allies chose to pursue the so-called policy of appeasement which gave them time to justify war against Germany to the public and to rearm. This course of action, of course, was still suicidal, but also intelligent insofar as that is possible in this context. The Allies started the war as early as they possibly could, they simply had no other real opportunities to do so. Even the Munich agreement was predicated on the basis of self-determination, which the Allies themselves had vigorously championed just a couple decades prior and by the time the Germans occupied all of Czechoslovakia, the Allied reason for intervention had basically been neutralised.

[–]Lugger[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I've grown tired of this discussion and this will be my last reply.

Moreover, you still have not addressed why the Allies refused to declare war on the Soviet Union

Because I've already covered exactly the same question in this thread replying to some guy.

What about their other promise to send in troops into Germany as soon as war broke out, rather than leave Poland to be crushed by Germany as they did historically during the phoney war?

Phoney War is another topic and I don't want to touch here, if I'm not mistaken they refused to invade it from the West because they were disorientiered/relied on defensive doctrine or something like that, can't answer for sure.

Germany "owes" lasting as long as it did in the war to its rearmament programme and the natural strength of its state and people.

...made possible by occupying practically the entire Europe — I'm talking, of course, about post-1940 Germany when the Brits had already tucked tail and retreated from mainland Europe.

You don't think natural resources and factories emerge out of thin air, right?

Good god, that's insane. You mean to tell me that Britain and France were at war with Germany for a whole year after the invasion of Czechoslovakia and no one did anything at all? History sure is strange.

Once again you misinterpreted my words after pulling them out of context.

Obviously, by that I meant only the Polish pact, which stated that Britain would be forced to declare the war on Germany if it started an invasion.

You've not only ignored my point, but you've also written up a list of accusations that apply equally well to the Allies.

They don't "apply equally well to the Allies" because they were the ones cucking to Germany and fuilfilling its wishes.

They betrayed several of the countries they had promised to protect

Unfortunately, it's true, and I've already explained why.

and they aggressively tried to encircle Germany in every conceivable way just for the sake of frustrating German foreign policy.

By letting Germans shit on all the treaties (including Versailles) and gain new lands?

Are you really this naive? ...

What you've written is that paragraph is just a list of wild guesses which cannot be proven, so you'll forgive me for not replying to this.

because their citizens would not have bothered to die for the sake of liberal warmongering without the necessary propaganda

Here we go again...

the wisest course of action would have been to let the Germans pursue their expansion policy towards the Soviet Union

How is letting Germany grab a huge pile of Soviet land and its enormous natural resources wise?

You realise that had they really allowed Germans to invade Russia and succeed, Germany would've been unstoppable?

Instead, the Allies chose to pursue the so-called policy of appeasement which gave them time to justify war against Germany to the public and to rearm. ...

More wild guesses.

You believe that they were only buying time to brainwash the population and prepare it for the war, I believe that they were genuinely trying to avoid the conflict.

Unless a rock solid proof is brough in, I don't think we can come to an agreement on this one.

Alright, this is it for today.

Since this is my last comment, I dont expect you to reply.

Anyway, I thank you for this discussion — I really do — and wish you good luck, bro.

[–]NeoRail 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Because I've already covered exactly the same question in this thread replying to some guy.

Unfortunately, I am not "some guy", I am "this guy".

Phoney War is another topic and I don't want to touch here, if I'm not mistaken they refused to invade it from the West because they were disorientiered/relied on defensive doctrine or something like that, can't answer for sure.

Because they had no intention to fight a war in which Poland was considered a factor, yes. They were hoping for a second round of trench warfare.

...made possible by occupying practically the entire Europe — I'm talking, of course, about post-1940 Germany when the Brits had already tucked tail and retreated from mainland Europe.

Sure, when the Germans threw the Allies off the continent they still hadn't developed their occupation game.

Once again you misinterpreted my words after pulling them out of context. Obviously, by that I meant only the Polish pact, which stated that Britain would be forced to declare the war on Germany if it started an invasion.

I know what you meant, I was demonstrating how farcical it is by pointing out its inconsistency with reality.

They don't "apply equally well to the Allies" because they were the ones cucking to Germany and fuilfilling its wishes.

They do and I explained why.

By letting Germans shit on all the treaties (including Versailles) and gain new lands?

Yes. If you think Versailles was some sort of normal and sustainable status quo, I refer you to history. That treaty could never have contained Germany. The options the Allies had were to either accept that Germany was still strong enough to have its own independent foreign policy or to engage in an aggressive and futile attempt to control a stronger force.

What you've written is that paragraph is just a list of wild guesses which cannot be proven, so you'll forgive me for not replying to this.

I have to forgive you, considering that you could never possibly respond to my argument given your poor and faulty logic, which I also exposed in that same paragraph.

Here we go again...

How many Frenchmen and Britons do you think would have been eager for another war with Germany? Have you looked at the peace campaigns in the democratic states? Only liberal warmongers like Churchill etc. were in favour of war.

How is letting Germany grab a huge pile of Soviet land and its enormous natural resources wise? You realise that had they really allowed Germans to invade Russia and succeed, Germany would've been unstoppable?

Germany and the Axis powers more broadly had no reason to wage war other than to obtain "a huge pile of land and enormous natural resources" - something which literally every other power had and only the Axis was denied. Seeing as Germany wasn't even trying to obtain the highly disproportional share of the colonial spoils that weaker states like France and Britain had claimed but rather those of a third party, the suicidal "strategy" of the democratic powers was certainly of dubious value, insofar as their interests were concerned.