Who Started World War II?

[tomfon]

I wonder why the Western Allies (United Kingdom & France) did not launch a major offensive against the German divisions in Poland, notwithstanding the terms of their alliances with the country. The Kriegsmarine, on the other hand, had launched an all out attack against Britain's merchant fleet and the Soviets invaded Finland right after Poland was invaded!

Could it be that they were trying to avoid war? I read somewhere in Wikipedia that France and Britain could present a combined force of approximately 110 divisions at the time, while the German divisions in Poland were 23. Actually, it was Alfred Jodl who said that the reason the German forces did not collapse in the year 1939 was that the Anglo-French divisions remained inactive against the 23 German divisions!

I find the Anglo-French attitude as strange as the fact that Hitler ordered his forces to stop their advance and let BEF to flee. Good for the British though.

[Oberon]

Originally Posted by tomfon

I wonder why the Western Allies (United Kingdom & France) did not launch a major offensive against the German divisions in Poland, notwithstanding the terms of their alliances with the country. The Kriegsmarine, on the other hand, had launched an all out attack against Britain's merchant fleet and the Soviets invaded Finland right after Poland was invaded!

Could it be that they were trying to avoid war? I read somewhere in Wikipedia that France and Britain could present a combined force of approximately 110 divisions at the time, while the German divisions in Poland were 23. Actually, it was Alfred Jodl who said that the reason the German forces did not collapse in the year 1939 was that the Anglo-French divisions remained inactive against the 23 German divisions!

I find the Anglo-French attitude as strange as the fact that Hitler ordered his forces to stop their advance and let BEF to flee. Good for the British though.

Logistics really, in order to get supplies to Poland you would have to go past the German coast, which would have all manner of aerial and submarine threats waiting to sink transports. The Arctic convoys would later discover how much of a threat such a route would have faced.

[Eichhörnchen]

I'm sure I've read somewhere that Hitler was persuaded to hold back at Dunkirk simply to give Goering an opportunity to show what his Stukas could do, and that he had no intention of allowing the BEF to escape.

[MaDef]

I'm rather partial to

[Oberon]

Originally Posted by Eichhörnchen

I'm sure I've read somewhere that Hitler was persuaded to hold back at Dunkirk simply to give Goering an opportunity to show what his Stukas could do, and that he had no intention of allowing the BEF to escape.

It also didn't help that the Panzers involved in the dash to the Channel were operating on the very edge of their supply train, even out-running it in many instances. I think Hitler probably couldn't believe his luck, that the vaunted French and British armies had been caught so completely off-guard by the Ardennes breakthrough and the extent of the confusion that prevented any success by the Allied forces from being fully exploited.
In short, I think Hitler was waiting for the other boot to drop and didn't want his panzers to be caught out of supply or encircled when it happened.

[tomfon]

Originally Posted by Oberon

Logistics really, in order to get supplies to Poland you would have to go past the German coast, which would have all manner of aerial and submarine threats waiting to sink transports. The Arctic convoys would later discover how much of a threat such a route would have faced.

It wouldn't be necessary for them to go past the German coast. An attack to the German borders probing Germany's defenses would shake things in a way, i guess.

In addition, Britain and France were reluctant to send their forces to Norway too. Of course, Hitler took the chance.

There it is! The Saar offensive and all. It partly describes the French attack in the Saarland which was cancelled only after a few km.

The strange thing is and i quote from wikipedia:

General Siegfried Westphal stated, that if the French had attacked in force in September 1939 the German army "could only have held out for one or two weeks." - World at War - "France Falls" - Thames TV

Funny, huh?

[Fahnenbohn]

Originally Posted by MaDef

I'm rather partial to

Funny : at 5:31, the orchestra is playing the French anthem.

And I like the WARNING below ...

[Fahnenbohn]

Originally Posted by Tchocky

You don't know the difference between history and propaganda.

Just a little observation : propaganda is not necessary a lie : Katyn.
So, just saying that "it's propaganda", doesn't demonstrate if it is right or wrong.

If the official documents show that you are right, then why not publish them to demonstrate it ?

[Catfish]

Propaganda of course plays an important role.

National political colour books are though not "evidence", they are published by all nations to give orientation of political guidelines of the time, and also to justify own political or military action.

Quoting the german "Weißbuch" alone will not verify or prove anything, but merely give a hint to the political thinking of Germany, or what it wanted to make its people and other nations believe.
Of course the german "Weißbuch" is never mentioned.. or at least i saw it for the first time to be quoted or linked, here.

So, to get the real view one should read all those books of different nations, and then additionally find real evidence and verified reports to get an estimated overview..



(OT what i found really interesting is what Germany tried in WW1, to counter belgian Raemaker's propaganda. Raemaker was a genuine german-hater, who did all he could for the Entente propaganda of the time, reporting incidents "witnessed" by himself that never took place. He never even was in Belgium before and during WW1, but in London. Germany never succeeded, and Raemaker's "reports" are still used as "evidence", today)

[Cybermat47]

Originally Posted by Fahnenbohn

If the official documents show that you are right, then why not publish them to demonstrate it ?

If your documents show that you are right, then why not publish them to demonstrate it?

We can use Google translate. Stop stalling, and publish the documents.

[HunterICX]

Originally Posted by Fahnenbohn

If the official documents show that you are right, then why not publish them to demonstrate it ?

First of all, it's you who have to provide yours to back up all those claims you've made.

Second, read an actual history book and you'll find references to these official documents, evidence, testimonies and photos that'll back them up and can easily be found on the web.

Third, you will just dismiss or ignore them as you've shown again and again already in this thread as it to being created by ''The Allied History fakers''.

Stop wasting time trying to re-arrange the roles here as it's YOU who has to provide and you've only got a week left so ''tick-tock-tick-tock''

[Fahnenbohn]

Originally Posted by Cybermat47

If your documents show that you are right, then why not publish them to demonstrate it ? Stop stalling, and publish the documents.

Originally Posted by HunterICX

First of all, it's you who have to provide yours to back up all those claims you've made.

Be patient, I'm working on it.

[Cybermat47]

Originally Posted by Fahnenbohn

Be patient, I'm working on it.

As I said, we can use Google Translate to translate the documents ourselves. So release them before I get bored.

[Fahnenbohn]

Originally Posted by Cybermat47

As I said, we can use Google Translate to translate the documents ourselves. So release them before I get bored.

No. They are too much complexe, and you won't be able to understand them. I'm working with someone who speaks English and who is correcting my translation as I progress. So, you have to wait.

[Dowly]

Don't forget to list the sources the books use, otherwise they are just opinion pieces.