I think it was both. Munich agreement could have created a hope that Poland may be happily fed to Germany too, and that other counties would be reluctant to enter the war or at least they would want to hold active actions for some time. Pre war territorial gains of Germany were almost like probing of willingness of other countries to fight: take something; no opposition, then take more.

Good that the tread opener jumped back in and brought the discussion back to the main esscence, which fed the plebs for the last 69 pages:
Us and them!

And someone still wonders, how the 2nd WW was possible? :rolleyes:

I am frankly disconcerted about the fact that people had an "us vs them" perspective on most of the posts of this thread, I really think it's either a huge case of "lost in translation" or approach to the topic in an incorrect manner.

Yes, the war actually started with both Germany AND Russia invading Poland.

No, Germany haven't invaded the rest of Europe, in case you've forgot, both Britain and France declared war against Poland invaders (though not on Russia..), so actually Germany was in a state of war with France and Britain.. so, that's not an invasion (as in we've invaded them over night), but a legit part of the war actions.

Yet.. DO you know about this little declaration?!! Read it carefully please, and go dig it into the war magazines archives in case you think it's forged:

"Poland wants war with Germany and Germany will not be able to avoid it even if she wants to." (Polish Marshal Rydz-Smigly as reported in the Daily Mail, August 6th, 1939)

What if actually Poland was acting as the small thug, knowing it has binding treaties with other two BIG thugs (read France and Britain) to jump in for it, no matter what?!!

There are voices saying that actually Poland was salying german population from the german territories taken from Germany and given to Poland at the end of WWI, and that was actually the reason for which Germany invaded Poland.. read Polish Atrocities Against the German Minority in Poland, and read it full, not just the main article in there


Things are much more complicated than they are presented to us by "official history"..

PS: also, there's another thing I keep hearing in this "if Germany would have won, history would have been very different".. implying it would have been much worse than the actual outcome.. yet.. I find this disturbing.. are you VERY SURE things wold have been much worse?

have any of your big-mouths-stating-this-bold-declaration countries spent the past 50 under the paw of the communist russian bear?!! do you have any idea what was like to live in eastern Europe from 1945 to 1990?!! Germany killed 6 millions in concentration camps, official record (which actually might be a much pumped-up number), but do you have ANY IDEA how many of my eastern europe fellows died in russian gulags?! the 50 millions number tells you anything?!! do you have any idea what happened in the countries and towns occupied by the soviets at the end of WWII?!! has the word mass rape any meaning to you?!! do you know that whole industries were dismantled from these countries and went to the brother russian as war compensations, leaving east european countries with nothing?! and then enslaved for the following 50 years to pay ten times the named war compensations (namely at the "fair" prices imposed by the russians)?!!

I'll tell you just one story, I've heard it countless times from all the elders I've talked with which were living those times.. when germans came, if you had two pigs, they would have taken one, and eventually give you something (no matter how symbolic) in exchange for it, and leave you the other.. when russian came, they would have taken both pigs, rape your wife and daugthers, take anything which could be carried away and eventually set everything remaining on fire..

THIS was your better alternative..

You may not be aware of the history of The Daily Mail in the 1930s under proprietor Lord Rothermere. It had well-publicised Nazi sympathies. In the context of the other rubbish they were publishing then the above 'story' should not be relied on as necessarily true.

Just a brief search on this as I don't have the time at the moment:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daily_Mail

Lord Rothermere was a friend and supporter of both Benito Mussolini and Adolf Hitler, which influenced the Mail's political stance towards them during the 1930s.[25][26] Rothermere's 1933 leader "Youth Triumphant" praised the new Nazi regime's accomplishments, and was subsequently used as propaganda by them.[27]

Rothermere and the Mail were also editorially sympathetic to Oswald Mosley and the British Union of Fascists.[28] Rothermere wrote an article entitled "Hurrah for the Blackshirts" in January 1934, praising Mosley for his "sound, commonsense, Conservative doctrine".

“ The minor misdeeds of individual Nazis would be submerged by the immense benefits the new regime is already bestowing on Germany (1933). ”

—Lord Rothermere, publisher


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...e-Romania.html

http://peterblack.blogspot.com/2010/...and-nazis.html

http://conservapedia.com/Daily_Mail

"In the 1930s, the Daily Mail was politically sympathetic to fascism, and Lord Rothermere wrote articles praising the British Union of Fascists and their leader Oswald Mosley in particular for showing “sound, commonsense, Conservative doctrine”. One headline notoriously read "Hurrah for the Blackshirts". However, he toned down his support after the Fascist party was involved in street violence. The Mail’s political stance was also influenced by Rothermere’s personal friendship with both Benito Mussolini and Adolf Hitler and his Nazi Party – the only newspaper to support them both consistently. Rothermere sent Hitler a telegram of congratulations after Germany invaded the Sudetenland in 1938. The paper also published The Protocols of The Elders of Zion in serial form, and ran inflammatory articles about Jewish immigrants.[4]

Neville Chamberlain’s appeasement policy was supported by the Daily Mail until after the Munich Agreement, but the newspaper changed its stance after the Nazi invasion of Hungary in 1939. This change of attitude may have been influenced by Chamberlain’s threat to close them down."

It most definately would have been much, much worse had Germany won. I am glad the Nazis lost in many ways.
Those stories about german minorites being persectued is most likely Propaganda. However, Poland indeed acted very, very agressivly towards Germany during the days of the Weimar Republic, after WW1 even tried to grab more land from Germany militarily.

Funny, however, how some individuals once again try to deflect this debate about Britain at Germany, as usual hiding behind Poles, Jews, Gypsies and other victims who they did not lift one finger for during the war. The usual hypocrisis.

Before talking about people 'deflecting' debate maybe you could refamiliarise yourself with the title of this thread!!

And then ask which individuals broadened the discussion initially.

edit: sorry Bewolf. Bit of an over-reaction

I'm not so sure.. Even if Germany won, I'm sure the german nazi scums would have been removed from the history's scene much faster and with less casualties than the soviet ones.. The german nation was at that time much more educated than the russian one

but of course, we can never be sure, and things went as they went..

I was not aiming at you, Kendo, I consider your posts quite sensible, though I can see how one feels targeted by association. And you are right about the initial topic, but that was left a long time ago.

That is purely speculative. I'd not have wanted to take that risk, to be honest.