Would Hit
Was Hitler pretending? How did he expect to win against the USSR, and not against France?
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
As a sidenote, people with morals VERY rarely get close to positions of power, unfortunately.
Of course immorality has still levels though...
The scenario is nonsense. The attack on Poland was not the cause of ww2 but the trigger. The cause was the agressive expansionist politic of germany in both ways.
1. Germany stressed the allied patience several times. The reoccupation of the Rhineland, the breaking of Versails regarding its armament Anschluss of Austria and Sudentenland, Annexation of Czechia and puppeting Slovakia etc. At one point Britain and France had to say stop otherwise they woul have become a compleete joke. So at this point germany had broken so many contracts and prommissings that UK/France needed to react in force. And at that Point UK/France vs Germany seemed a rather unequal fight so there was little reason to back down for them for anything else but restoring the 1936 situation.
2. Germany needed war economically. This is often ignored. The German Government had gone all in on armament and that asset had to be made into money somehow otherwise Germany had crumbled economically as the big "armaments bubble" had to burst sometime sooner or later. To make money with your army you have to occupie countries and plunder them. So if Poland had just given in to Germanys Danzig or war ultimatum germany would still be in need of a war. Perhaps they would have pressed for Eupen Malmedy (Belgium) next and if the got that for the "Anschluss" Of the Netherlands or Switzerland or for Alsac Lorraine. Or if the Polish Government would collaborate for an early Barbarossa. There wouldhave been no peace with Nazi Germany as Nazi Germany craved for War.
1. Germany stressed the allied patience several times. The reoccupation of the Rhineland, the breaking of Versails regarding its armament Anschluss of Austria and Sudentenland, Annexation of Czechia and puppeting Slovakia etc. At one point Britain and France had to say stop otherwise they woul have become a compleete joke. So at this point germany had broken so many contracts and prommissings that UK/France needed to react in force. And at that Point UK/France vs Germany seemed a rather unequal fight so there was little reason to back down for them for anything else but restoring the 1936 situation.
2. Germany needed war economically. This is often ignored. The German Government had gone all in on armament and that asset had to be made into money somehow otherwise Germany had crumbled economically as the big "armaments bubble" had to burst sometime sooner or later. To make money with your army you have to occupie countries and plunder them. So if Poland had just given in to Germanys Danzig or war ultimatum germany would still be in need of a war. Perhaps they would have pressed for Eupen Malmedy (Belgium) next and if the got that for the "Anschluss" Of the Netherlands or Switzerland or for Alsac Lorraine. Or if the Polish Government would collaborate for an early Barbarossa. There wouldhave been no peace with Nazi Germany as Nazi Germany craved for War.
USSR never shown big military Know-how. They sucked in finland, they got beaten on the eastern front in WW1. Even before the Revolution.
You just beaten France, which counted the best army in the world that time, u wouldnt have issues to attack USSR.
I'm not Hitler so not quite sure but probably he wanted to unify all German peoples in the late 30's and early 40's then go on an extensive military buildup and invade the USSR only later when they are strong and prepared.
I think he didn't consider Germany being ready for a major war in 1939.
He thought the West will back off eventually like they did before. That's the essence of brinkmanship. Just he failed to see the line with Poland well.
Last edited:
Germany had defeated Russia in 1917, before losing on the Western front in 1918.
I don't think that's true historically, though it's more true in modern times. Basically with hereditary monarchies and such, you get what you get in terms of succession. For every Commodus there's a Marcus Aurelius. For every Vlad Dracula there's an Alfred the Great. But, succession wars tended to happen not when someone simply had a claim to the throne (as CK2 would have you believe
) but when someone had a claim and was generally less likely to be a tyrant. People don't like being ruled by tyrants, so when a claimant needs the support of nobles or whoever else in a war for the throne, they'll only back him if he's not a tyrant. This was most apparent in England, though it happened elsewhere too. The more arbitrary and immoral a regime becomes, the more it sows the seeds of its own destruction. This was as true for the French Ancien Regime as it was for the Han Dynasty.Now, as power became more centralized, this trend became less important and based on self-interest. Even still, the age of truly immoral rulers saw its heyday with the abusive colonial monarchies of the 18th and (more so) 19th Century followed by the ideological autocracies of the 20th Century. Democracies still tend to care about moral character, though there are obviously exceptions, these exceptions tend to be the kind that prove the rule.
Of course, it all depends on how you define "immoral." If you import modern "morality" (more cultural fashion, but that's another discussion) onto past figures, a lot of them will be "immoral." So I'm looking at it in the context of the time, adherence to the law, if any law existed (so executions aren't immoral if conducted properly, for example), general care for the welfare of the people, attention to higher principles as opposed to purely material gain, honor (including keeping true to one's word, treatment of foes, that sort of thing), etc. I'm not using any one particular moral framework since that wouldn't make any sense.
I think versail are more heavier: LOST ALL COLONIES! Repeat LOST ALL COLONIES! Colonies = Money, a LOT of MONEY! In hoi4 are only resource for industry and building slot. But in real economy Are Resource, and in certain case customer (Canada and India are well customer of British for exemple)
- 2
Economic studies of colonialism have usually found that colonies are a net loss in the end, so I'm afraid your argument doesn't work.
- 2
This video is a interview with Pat Buchanan about the book: Churchill, Hitler, and the unnecessary war. I think it will be enlightening to this thread.
That's not really true. Colonies were generally loss making operations at the national level. Individuals could make a lot by externalising their costs onto the nation, with the tab picked up by the taxpaying public, but that just magnifies the net loss of the nation. (Not-coincidentally, the same kind of person is still making money in the same kind of way, albeit with the corporation taking the place of colonies. But they're still externalising their costs in order to maximise personal profit: socialised costs vs privatised profits.)
Also, Germany didn't really have any colonies worthy of note. Nauru? Samoa? Namibia? pfft. Besides, she'd already lost all those during the war anyway. She didn't get them BACK at Versailles, but they weren't lost there.
Last edited:
- 1
Last edited:
- 1
I don't think that's true historically, though it's more true in modern times. Basically with hereditary monarchies and such, you get what you get in terms of succession. For every Commodus there's a Marcus Aurelius. For every Vlad Dracula there's an Alfred the Great. But, succession wars tended to happen not when someone simply had a claim to the throne (as CK2 would have you believe
Now, as power became more centralized, this trend became less important and based on self-interest. Even still, the age of truly immoral rulers saw its heyday with the abusive colonial monarchies of the 18th and (more so) 19th Century followed by the ideological autocracies of the 20th Century. Democracies still tend to care about moral character, though there are obviously exceptions, these exceptions tend to be the kind that prove the rule.
Of course, it all depends on how you define "immoral." If you import modern "morality" (more cultural fashion, but that's another discussion) onto past figures, a lot of them will be "immoral." So I'm looking at it in the context of the time, adherence to the law, if any law existed (so executions aren't immoral if conducted properly, for example), general care for the welfare of the people, attention to higher principles as opposed to purely material gain, honor (including keeping true to one's word, treatment of foes, that sort of thing), etc. I'm not using any one particular moral framework since that wouldn't make any sense.
I agree with almost everything very much.
I would add though that i consider modern democracies care much more for the image of having morals than actually having them. I mean a dictator or monarch doesn't necessarily need to look like a moral person while an elected representative is obliged to do so. This doesn't necessarily mean that the elected one is actually a more moral person.
I think colonialism was at least partly motivated by the same civilising attitude which brings the belief of some today that exporting democracy is a good idea
Last edited:
For some blocs in some colonising powers, I agree that that is true. However ...
... in this I agree with Churchill that democracy is the worst possible political system, except for all the others. Which is not to say that the ignorant assumption that forms of government which work in one context will automagically work in others - without a generation or three of preparatory capability building - makes for good policy.
Last edited:
Actually leaving a rump Poland intact was discussed, but was eventually and definitively shot down by the Russians. From The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich:
The telegrams are available here, through the Wayback Machine:
https://web.archive.org/web/20071105072928/http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/nazsov/ns080.htm
https://web.archive.org/web/20071105072934/http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/nazsov/ns081.htm
https://web.archive.org/web/20080226032203/http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/nazsov/ns082.htm
Et cetera.
The telegrams are available here, through the Wayback Machine:
https://web.archive.org/web/20071105072928/http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/nazsov/ns080.htm
https://web.archive.org/web/20071105072934/http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/nazsov/ns081.htm
https://web.archive.org/web/20080226032203/http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/nazsov/ns082.htm
Et cetera.
Russia played its own game. They were close to ally with Britain and France to stop the german expansion. They failed cause of the military rights through poland, which wasnt acceptable for the western allies. Strange how fast they turned to german and agreed to the Hitler -Stalin pact aka. molotov-ribbtr. pact.