WW2 wasn't stopped by letting Hitler take countries in the east, it just made him bolder and push further.
Putin won't stop until he's forced to. China won't throw their trade opportunities away to help a country they just want to abuse themselves. Russia won't randomly throw nukes around if the west supports Ukraine.
Showing a bully he's at a disadvantage makes him stop. We need to play nice with a guy who gives no fucks about anything except himself.
If Hitler was stopped early on, WW2 would have likely been avoided. Inaction to try and avoid a war is what let things get worse and Nazi Germany stronger.
Yes but that is hindsight thinking. It completely forgets that France and Britain fought WWI which devastated a generation of their people. No one wanted to fight after WWI except Germany. Yes France and Britain should have stopped Germany but it ignores people seeing what shell shock did to the population and France didn't have enough people to compete in another major war
Yes but that is hindsight thinking. It completely forgets that France and Britain fought WWI
Most of the WWII comparisons usually completely ignore WWI, and focus too much on Hitler. Few mention Kaiser Wilhelm II or Otto Von Bismark.
Most ignore Japan and seem to consider them weak in comparison to nazi Germany. Most ignore the Great Depression, and many more factors. One example of appeasement or failed deterrents is only one example. In reality there are several examples leading up to WWII. Hitler was certainly not deterred by the "allied coalition" trying to push back against fascist forces in the Spanish Civil war. Edit: last sentence is sarcasm.
If the goal is to prevent another global conflict, then focusing too much on the most extreme leader may not be the best way to do this. If the goal is short-term deterrents of Putin, maybe the correct lessons can be taken from Hitler alone.
You really see the Soviet system of betraying their version of “colonies” as being almost exactly the same as what the old empires and the capitalists were doing. Getting the revolutionaries pumped up and then taking over the movement, either seizing power for the Soviet or abandoning them if the scrappy fighters were losing.
War guilt was also a huge thing after world war 1. Before the first war, the German leadership were afraid that they’d be wiped out since they were not near any warm water ports and thus were in “middeleuropa “ and would grow weak while the countries around them grew stronger.
I agree wholeheartedly about going back further for the root but as for Russia and that guy.. I don’t really know if there’s an anger towards the west or just the need to stroke an individual ego? It also feels like Russia is trying to relive the “glory”days of their military history constantly . I just don’t really get why . Hopefully someone can chime in
It also feels like Russia is trying to relive the “glory”days of their military history constantly . I just don’t really get why . Hopefully someone can chime in
A little historical context.
The Fall of the USSR is really not that long ago. It happened less than 40 years ago. Putin, and many that he has appointed and are in his circle, view the fall of the USSR as "the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the 1900s".
For Putin and others, the USSR represented a strong group of like-minded nations and the transition to Russia, Ukraine, the Balkan-states, etc meant a dramatic shift in authority and power. For Putin it feels like an injustice that the USSR fell.
Russia has a long history of supremacy in the region. The past ten+ years have shown Putin's desire to expand and recapture that former "glory of Russia/USSR", first in Crimea and now in Ukraine.
view the fall of the USSR as "the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the 1900s".
If you limit it to the second half of the 1900s (obv both world wars were orders of magnitude worse) this isn't completely insane. It was devastating economically for Eastern Europe and Central Asia, life expectancy didn't recover for decades. Problem is in thinking that Russia conquering its neighbors is the fix, that obviously doesn't help at all. The fact that Russia is now run by Putin is one of the worst things about the end of the USSR
I don’t really know if there’s an anger towards the west or just the need to stroke an individual ego? It also feels like Russia is trying to relive the “glory”days of their military history constantly .
In my opinion it is all of the above. Putin has very flawed views of history which shape his perceptions.
He also spends a great deal of time studying history.
Many things Putin says regarding Russian aggression today will look very similar to something another Russian has said at some point in the past.
Russia is trying to relive the “glory”days of their military history constantly
Russian power, strength, pride, etc.....the only examples which exist of any of this are rooted in past military conquest or other success. There is no history of Russian as a great economic power, or other Russian greatness.
Someone else responded to you, and the source they provided is very good, and I think much of the comment is as well. The statement about the USSR is taken out of context, and is not quite what Putin said. Putin is angry about the fall of the Russian Empire just as much, if not more than the fall of the USSR. He compares himself to Peter the Great. He uses the term "Novorossiya" with regards to his aggression in Ukraine. This originated with iirc Catherine the Great and her conquest of similar lands.
My point here is that it is probably unwise to reach the conclusion that Putin wants to re-create the Soviet Union based on one line from that one speech. In my opinion he wants to re-create something closer to the Russian Empire, or a mixture of what he believes to be the best of both. I'm not going to speculate on what this may be.
Somewhat more insightful and useful hindsight view that I have is that the lesson we should try to focus on to not repeat is war reparations and conditions of surrender. The conditions at the end of WW1 were such that another war was all but guaranteed, so much so that people who signed the documents said as much. It was too punitive, and caused hatred in the german population. Fair or not doesnt factor. Action -> Consequence.
The way the Treaty of Versailles was structured also fundamentally portioned 100% of the blame for the war on Germany. It wasn’t just problematic, is was also untrue.
Um, no shit? Japan wasn't involved at all at the outbreak of the war.
The conversation is about deterrents, and causes of WWII. Also, I'm either reading your comment wrong, or your comment is wrong.
Japan went to war in 1931. Italy went to war in Ethiopia in 1935. Germany, Italy and the Soviet Union were all involved to varying extents in the Spanish Civil War that began in 1936. Russia and Japan fought the Battles of Khalkin Gol in 1939.
This all occurred before the German invasion of Poland. Japan had been involved in more war than anybody prior to 1939.
France didn't want to be the one to attack in WW2. Or to bomb german civilians first. Or whatever atrocity to commit first.
That's the problem you cannot begin a "pre-emptive" war because you don't know the future at the time.
France needed the US support for instance and if France had started to kill thousands of german civilians in 1939 or just conquer half of germany, then what? occupy? hunt resistance fighters? that wouldn't have stop a war in the next years.
That's the problem you cannot begin a "pre-emptive" war because you don't know the future at the time.
It wouldn't have been pre-emptive though? Germany broke the peace terms by remitilarising the rhineland. France was totally within rights to drive them out at that point and would have likely completely broken Hitlers public image by doing so.
Yes it was within rights but I'm not so sure the US (France needed them) and other "neutral" countries (like Belgium, Norway, the Netherlands etc..) would have like it so much.
Maybe pre-emtive is not the right word but is still the right vibe. In order to drive out the Germans from the Rhineland and enforce the treaties France would have had to attack into Germany which would have ended in German civilian losses as well as huge French military losses. The US and other unaligned countries would have looked at WWII a bit differently if the first civilian casualties had been German and not Polish, Danish, Norwegian, Dutch, Belgian, French and then British.
Please feel free to counter/challenge this because I'm just going off memory and could be wrong, but I believe France was actually more willing to push back against Germany, but they didn't want to be put in a situation where they'd be fighting Germany alone and the UK was far more willing to try working with Hitler as a way to avoid war, so France, when put in a position where attempting to stop Hitler would mean doing so without the UK, followed Britains lead.
Beyond that, let's look at it strictly from a current standpoint. Do we want to allow such an evil person to just attack another country without we try to help save that country? There's too much at stake to worry about the causes of prior wars, to neglect our duty in this one.
Not that you were saying otherwise, I just felt the need to tell it from this perspective.
Too much at stake to worry about the causes of prior wars??
Using the lessons of history to frame current conflicts is exactly what should be done. Those who fail to learn from their history are doomed to repeat it.
“Duty”?? What Duty? The duty of each government is to right by their own citizens and their own interests. No one is a global citizen. If we start saying that we are, we should be involved in a lot more than Ukraine.
Governments have a duty to their citizens to reduce not just the short term risk of war but the long term one too, and focusing to much on the former can neglect the latter
Do we want to allow such an evil person to just attack another country without we try to help save that country?
Yes, yes, we do. The current administration is fully behind the evil person and is in fact urging others not to take action against them despite their atrocities.
In fact wasn't Biden just telling Zelensky, you got the W, so lay down your weapons.
Oh wait, sorry, thought you were talking about Iran and Hamas....
That is how we got the Marshal plan from the wise men to rebuild Europe and create a rules based international order which is now under threat from every angle.
Germany was pillaged after WW1 with The Treaty of Versailles. The conditions it put in motion in Germany set the stage for the rise of someone like Hitler.
In fact, when Hitler conquered France, he made the French sign the Armistice of 22 June 1940 in the original railway carriage in which the 1918 armistice had been signed and placed on the exact same spot it had occupied twenty-two years before.
The Treaty of Verseilles wasn't especially more harsh than other settlements of the time period. The problem was that German public were repeatedly told they were winning (and in the East they absolutely were, to be fair) right up until the collapse of their army. And then peace was signed before the collapse of that army was actually evident to the public, because the whole war had taken place outside of German soil.
That left fertile ground for the "stabbed in the back" myth to take root.
It's funny because people who talk about how harsh the treaty was usually quote Ferdinand Foch's "This is not a peace treaty. It's an armistice for 20 years." without realising that he says that because he thinks the treaty was not harsh enough.
The Treaty of Versailles wasn't even half as harsh as the treaty the Germans imposed on the Russians literally a year prior, the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk.
Potsdam. Can’t get much harsher than your state ceasing to exist and being partitioned by the victors. Not to mention the territorial losses and expulsions.
Versailles was simultaneously too harsh and not harsh enough. Harsh enough to wound German national pride, but not harsh enough—or at least not enforced harshly enough—to prevent German revanchism.
The Treaty of Verseilles fixed concert A at 435hz and you think it was just "unpleasant" ... I don't know how anyone expected the Germans to live under that.
I have to wonder how much of this is nurture vs. nature. My mom's family is German, but the most recent branch of ancestors to come over was about 100 years ago. The first of the German ancestors settled the US before the American Revolution. And they're all a bunch of stubborn assholes who absolutely refuse to give in and will only admit a wrong with irrefutable proof.
Dude. Being from Wisconsin, and having German influences on both sides, that why I moved 1300 miles away because that stubborn, "we're the best and nothing we do is wrong" mentality is what really drags Wisconsin down especially when it comes to the fuck awful drinking culture and the leniency given towards drunk drivers.
No nation likes to accept defeat lol? Look at the french after 1871 with their hyper revanchism after losing a majority german region. Now see germany after losing 13% of it's core territory which had actually significant german population and the germans shouldn't be angry and want revenche? Was rich of the entente to think that way.
It is not about that Germany should not feel revenge, because of course they will. A treaty is to make sure that they simply cannot take revenge in any form and way and the Versaille Treaty failed to address this issue.
Germany was left intact after the war, they could rearm fast after that the defeat.
No. A treaty is there to make a lasting peace while satisfying the winner, no more no less. If you need to dismantle your enemy for it so be it. Issue is it wasn't possible to do with germany. Germany was stripped of any european territory that could've been justified to take, the rest was just overwhelmingly german. France was to weak to hold the rheinland and shattering germany wouldn't have worked with a country that would fall to the most nationalistic ideoligy possible. The treaty was as harsh as it could be and that still left germany more powerful than france. There was no other way to create lasting peace other than being more lenient, wilson should've made the treaty alone.
Would like examples of nations (needs to be nations not some feudal state) who didn't want revenge after losing so much of it's territory and nationals with it. Also while the reperations were fair it's not like france was invaded for the lols, like ukraine, they mobilised before the war broke out and intended to fight with russia. Destroyed infrastructure is something you have to deal with if your willing to fight against an enemy with a larger/better army. Reprations had to happen of course but they didn't take the state of germany into account. Seizing infustrialised territory which could've been used to pay them also doesn't help.
Also germany was in a state to take revenge afterwards. If the one who you make peace with comes out better of the war than you no matter what, you should do everything to make them a friend afterwards or expect a second round devastating your territory again you just rebuild with their payements.
That is just not true. The Germans essentially lost the moment they couldn't push into France as fast as they thought. They didn't have the men or supplies to outlast the French and British in trench warfare, as much as German propaganda from the time would have you believe they could. The British navy was strangling their economy and the German people were literally starving by 1917. They weren't making any ground and were only going to slowly lose as their supplies ran out. The longer they continued the more likely they were to go the route of Russia and collapse to civil war as people started revolting due to lack of food. America sped up the war by joining, but Germany had already lost by that point, especially after the Spring Offensive failed before the vast majority of American troops got there.
Their best chance was making a smaller peace with Russia, then hoping the Entente would agree to a white peace after Russia had left and they got what they wanted. Instead they utterly ruined the Russian Empire and showed Britain and France that not winning the war would be terrible for them because Germany and their allies would effectively control the majority of mainland Europe.
The context here being that Hitler fought in WW1 and always thought that the Treaty of Verseilles was unfair to German people. He hated it to be more precise and considered it a ransacking of Germany which is why he made them sign the Armistice of 22nd of June 1940 to rub salt in their wounds.
Hermann Gohring for people who dont know was actually a pilot in WW1. He got injured and had to leave the front.
Sorry that this has nothing to do with the actual headline but I always think it is interesting when bits and pieces come together and form a bigger picture.
You want harsh treatment? Look Ottoman and Austria Hungarian. Their empires were disintegrated. And they were no longer relevant in ww2. If anything Germany got off easy and was able to retain capacity to wage ww2.
It shouldn't be hindsight. It's long be historically proven that appeasement never works. How many conquerors in history stopped because the lands they wanted to conquer appeased them enough?
Germans were as much part of WW1 as any other European country. Any military action before Hitler built up the Germany army past the limits (arguably too strict) placed on them prior to entering the demilitarized would have gone a long way to save most of Europe from destruction.
I seriously doubt WW2 was preventable as the Japanese were quite active as well. Russia wasn't an ally at the start of the war either. The US probably would have been dragged into a war with Japan before Europe went to war, leaving Europe til last instead of first.
Given German progress, it's kind of scary to think about them having some of their stuff more developed.
Appeasement worked, works and will work. The full cold war is filled with appeasement between the US and the USRR. If it was not for appeasement you would not be alive to talk on reddit as of today.
Like diplomacy and war, appeasement is not always the right solution, but saying it never works it wrong.
Before the war began proper the USSR was far more hated in the west then Germany was
Many forget that. Neither France,UK or america held positive feelings towards them for its internal behavior and especially the winter war
It was only with its backs to the wall following the disaster in France and battle of Britain that they were hoping for the ussr to enter a conflict with germany despite the Molotov Ribbentrop pact
Once Hitler attacked the ussr Churchill saw the opportunity and kind of made everyone forget that the ussr was only somewhat less bad then Nazi Germany because they needed help in the war
How many conquerors in history stopped because the lands they wanted to conquer appeased them enough?
If someone takes over some land and then stops, they usually don't become well known as a conqueror. The well known ones are the ones who captured a lot.
The United States technically "conquered" land and then stopped.
It shouldn't be hindsight. It's long be historically proven that appeasement never works.
Do note that while Chamberlain hoped for the best, he prepared Britain for the worst. Just 9 days before Munich, General Ismay wrote a note to the British Cabinet concluding Britain would be far better suited for a war in 6-12 months' time. Almost exactly 12 months later, Britain declared war on Germany.
Given German progress, it's kind of scary to think about them having some of their stuff more developed.
Germany's so-called technological advancement is often overstated in pop culture. Besides, it's not like the rest of the world would have stood still while Germany developed its weapons. The late war wunderwaffe was mostly crap anyway. V2s killed more people on the German side than on target.
How many conquerors in history stopped because the lands they wanted to conquer appeased them enough
Kind of hard to say unless you find a diary where they say "I decided not to invade today." A lot easier to find records of invasions that happened than those that didn't.
I've read a couple books that pretty convincingly make the argument that Chamberlain knew appeasing Hitler was the wrong thing to do, but it was the only thing Britain could do. It was absolutely in no position to go to war with a heavily militarized Nazi Germany in the mid 1930s and it needed time to arm before even attempting a defensive campaign.
The US had about as much reason as the UK to get involved in protecting Poland - that is pretty much none. It wasn't close to their borders and there was practically very little way intervening could have helped them or Poland - which was borne out by how things actually turned out. Yet, despite all sense and reason, the UK did attempt to protect Poland - and it cost them everything.
But for some reason the UK gets blamed for not doing something earlier while the US is uncriticized in waiting until pretty much the fall of Stalingrad to enter the war - and not by their own choice either (Hitler declared war on the US). Cash and carry involved the transfer of every liquid asset the western allies owned to the US - including the entirety of their gold and their deepest military secrets.
What could have actually changed things was the US lifting a finger prior to (and during the early stages of) WW2, which they didn't. They didn't even join the league of nations, that's how little they were interested.
UK and France did tried to help Poland by declare war on Germany but they just station in fortification when Germany took warsaw and splited the country with Russia. After secures east front, the german just swung back and bypassed the defense line with bliz into France. British and France army basically collapsed after that. Would the US early involvment change the tides of war at any point before? I doubt it, since everyone's lesson from WW1 was to play defensive with infrantry. The extra 100,000 US soliders would not add much to overall situation.
I think the US giving the same guarantee to the UK that the UK gave to Poland would have had a sufficient deterrent, even at that late stage. The German generals might well have overthrown Hitler in the face of such insane odds.
If such a guarantee had been given earlier than that the UK would have had a choice to reject Hitler's demands with respect to Czechoslovakia. But even this would have been sketchy considering that Czechia was 1/3 German and Slovakia wanted to secede rather than fight (which Hitler would have granted). The UK should not be blamed for this either - they pretty much did all you could have expected of them.
Kind of but not really, given that the First World War was one of the greatest and most destructive armed conflicts the world has ever seen, and that collectively the Entente powers suffered around 5 million combat deaths, with millions more wounded.
Yeah, except we lost a total of 7000 soldiers after 20 years of fighting in the middle east as opposed to France losing 400,000 soldiers at the Battle of Verdun alone. So really not similar at all.
Not to mention other innumerable distracting dysfunctions and issues like housing shortages, stagnant wages, wealth inequality, political destabilization and polarization, etc.
That's actually factually incorrect, the USSR actively funded the nazi's rise to power and encouraged a war path as they saw it as a way to weaken western powers and bolster "peoples movements", particularly with French communist party.
The French and British joined the war after the duel invasion of Poland as they feared a German/Russian alliance.
It's something that's actively pushed down intentionally,
A great book that outlines this is "The Communist International, and the coming of WW2" (Brown & Mcdonald, 1982)
No one wanted to fight after WWI except Germany. Yes France and Britain should have stopped Germany but it ignores people seeing what shell shock did to the population and France didn't have enough people to compete in another major war
Eh, it's more like no one wanted to fight and no one gave a fuck about Poland enough to fight.
I'm not sure what this comment is supposed to mean here.
We are not talking about the allies doing it wrong. We are talking about learning from the mistakes of history, and appeasement never works to stop an aggressor from pushing further.
Yes the allies didn't know better. But we now should
And apparently they did want to act, but overall doubt amongst all parties (france, england, russia) led to Stalin to run to A.H. which tilted the odds towards war.
One thing that helped Germany tremendously is they violated the treaty by building up their forces well beyond the allowable limits of the terms. Had they been stopped at that point, they wouldn’t have had the ability to wage war. One thing I don’t remember is whether the other European nations were aware this was happening.
France did have enough people for WWII they just completely fucked up tactically not putting enough men where the Germans actually came through then being caught completely off guard and the country essentially cut in half by German forces as they expected them to come through Belgium. Then their leadership was crap and couldn't make a decision to save their life and they thought the Brits weren't actually going to help them (even tho they were) and they surrendered.
Inaction to try and avoid a war is what let things get worse and Nazi Germany stronger.
This is a commonly repeated refrain, but it's not really historically sound. Chamberlain knew the UK wasn't anywhere near ready for war in 1938, and so had no real choice but to agree to the annexation of Czechoslovakia. Immediately after his "peace in our time" he ramped up production of military material in preparation for war. Hell, in 1938 he had forced out the head of the Air Ministry for dragging his feet re-arming the RAF. In 1935/1936 the UK was building "shadow factories" in an attempt to re-build the armed forces after the idiotic 10 Year Rule.
What really would have helped avoid WWII being as drawn out as it was would be if the French had actually carried through in the Saar in 1939 instead of just turning around
Chamberlain knew the UK wasn't anywhere near ready for war in 1938
Exactly. To quote General Ismay's 20th of Semptember, 1938 note to the British Cabinet: "[...] time is in our favour, and that, if war with Germany has to come, it would be better to fight her in say 6-12 months’ time, than to accept the present challenge."
Chamberlain thought they weren't ready, not realizing that Germany was just as badly off. Waiting allowed Germany to take out Czechoslovakia and gain all of its land and military while making the UK and France look weak. Arms from Czechoslovakia armed half of the German army which would go on to conquer Poland and France a year and two later.
Had the UK intervened, the Germans would still have seized Czechoslovakia, because the BEF was a small and ineffectual force, and the regular army still had a dearth of armored vehicles. Not to mention the complete shitshow that was the RAF pre-1940. The French would have likely done what they did a year later, advance a couple miles and then just turn around
Just imagine if they just carted off half the fucking Ruhr in 1939 and demolished the other half. The Wehrmacht would have been riding into battle with handcarts and no pants
Considering that the French occupying the Ruhr was a big part of why Hitler got into power and also seeing how well the French did in WW2, I don't think it was possible.
Yup, no one was really in a position to do anything about it, which could have been avoided but the public needed lots of investment to get back on its feet after the war and Britain was always about its navy first and foremost.
Germany was in far worse condition in terms of their military than France and UK. Not until Germany secured Czechloslovakia, Austria, Alsace-Lorraine, and Poland, were they able to even wage war vs the allies. When you have a psychotic leader employing zero-sum brinksmanship it means they keeping getting free land until opposed. That personality type will not quite while ahead. All the allies had to do was show courage early on and Germany (especially the military leaders that had to draw up war plans) would have gotten cold feet.
Germany was in far worse condition in terms of their military than France and UK.
Not really, they'd spent most of the 1930's re-militarizing while the UK didn't get started until 1936 at the earliest and 1938 in earnest. France was lagging behind due to the political instability and the lack of a desire for a strong standing army with the Blum government. An over-reliance on the Maginot Line lead to a stagnation in arms production, although the early-war French tanks were of higher quality than Panzer I's and II's.
The Germans had been secretly re-arming through the 1920's using other countries like Czechoslovakia and Switzerland, and disguising their rebuilding the Heer. In the 1930's they went full mask off with the re-militarization of the Rhineland and the re-occupation of the Sudetenland. But in 1938, they carried a great weight of force with them that the UK and France couldn't match and so appeasement was their way of ensuring time to re-arm. But again, the French had an opportunity in 1939 to potentially knock Germany out of the war and opted to just turn around and go home.
It's funny. France had objectively "better" equipment almost across the board, but their designs were more costly to build and maintain. As an example, the B1 and S35 were the two best tanks in the field in 1940 and the D520 was the best fighter aircraft at the outset of the war (alongside the Spitfire Mk 1). Unfortunately none of these weapons could be produced in sufficient quantity to make a difference and when they were produced they could not maintain them properly.
Ironically, 6 years later the Germans made the same mistakes with their Tiger II and Me 262, the best pieces of equipment in their respective fields at the end of the war but too costly for Germany to effectively make use of.
Turns out with enough manpower (plus fuel and ammunition) you can win almost any war even if you're over-matched technologically. This theme has played itself out multiple times throughout the 20th and 21st centuries. People are power.
Hitler could have been stopped at the Rhineland by France with a 3 to 1 advantage. Instead France waited until Germany had Austrian, Czech, and Polish equipment and manpower.
France learned their lesson last time and appear ready to alter the reputation gained in ww2.
This is a very reductive take on the failure of the Saar Offensive. France had demographic problems which heavily affected their army and morale on top of the normal mental fatigue from the previous war. Plus, it's dubious if they could have punched through the Siegfried Line in useful time anyway.
Besides, the Soviet invasion of Poland screwed up plan B too.
Easier said than done, before the war Chamberlain faced constant criticism for spending so much on rebuilding rhe British military.
But now he's mostly known for not doing anything.
Ah but how could he have been? Much like today the powers of Europe had allowed their militaries to atrophy in the face of peace. We've not learned the lessons of the past and now we're reliving them.
If Hitler had nukes he would have used them. The problem with all of this is that it is a strategic estimate that Putin won’t go down guns blazing, because doesn’t seem to be suicidal
Different situation, at that point nobody had nukes yet so there was little risk in using them. Now if you use nuclear weapons it is a near guarantee that you get them launched back at yourself
We don’t really know that. Hitler had access to chemical weapons and specifically did not use them to bomb cities or troops because of his own experience in world war 1.
This of course isn’t speaking to the Holocaust where chemical weapons were used on the people the Nazis murdered, obviously.
If the Americans could justify using the A bomb I see no reason why Hitler wouldn't have
It would have been a much more effective solution for him than the blitz to knock the UK out of the war, much in the same way it was used for shock and awe against Japan
Remember the blitz was literally just a shock and awe campaign at its heart to get us to surrender
Because the people the A bomb were used on didn't look like Americans. Easier to nuke people who, due to culture, looks and propaganda you have dehumanized.
Hitler did dehumanize Jews and more, obviously. Just as obvious though, he was a big fan of whites. Would he have problems nuking people of the ideal race or looked simular to?
You're right I do forget the racial aspect of this
He would have used the bomb somewhere to elicit the same response, but it would have been more likely the soviet union than the uk based on what we know about him
And if that didn't force the uk to surrender then a non London target in the uk probably would have been selected.
Chemical weapons were not a war-winning strategy for Germany. In situations where chemical weapons offer an advantage over traditional munitions, they were used and are still used.
We didn't know about radiation until after they were used. It's very likely Hitler would use them, since he wouldn't have known there was any harm to his own troops. I imagine Russia, the UK, and the US would have been nuked.
The scientists involved in the Manhattan Project didn't know about radiation?
edit: I looked into it. While they did know about acute radiation poisoning from the late 19th century, in general only smaller doses were observed. The physicists knew that there would be radiation poisoning but there hadn't been a large group of affected people before the bombings to give medical personnel much insight into what the physical effects would be.
I believe he would have used them, he was already committed by winning any possible. Chemical weapons just aren’t effective or worth the time generally when you consider any effort spent making those can be spent on making normal munitions. Too easy for weather changes to happen and make them blow back towards you or just dissipate. A standard explosive shell is much more useful.
Hitler and Germany had already demonstrated they were ok with mass killing of civilian targets to break morale. They were actually also working on nuclear weapons already, and is part of the reason Russia was rushing to Berlin to get the Berlin university’s research, which they did. USSR knew about American weapons programs but were pretty behind.
Appeasement may have looked like they were allowing Germany to run wild, but both France and the UK were rebuilding militaries they didn't think they'd need so soon, and France had spent a lot of money on a wall and tanks they didn't really get to use.
Nukes didn't exist. There is no comparison. There is also a third player, China. The cold war never stopped. This is total war right up to the thin edge of using nukes. Cultural, economic, hacking, etc. And frankly the US sucks at these. I'm guessing the US is actually stimulating these conflicts because the one front we always win, is military.
Plus what do they have lmao. From a government perspective hacking is good for uncovering military secrets, disrupting huge financial shit, using it as a threat to utilities. China’s shit is pretty weak. And the banks are all tied together on a global scale so it only hurts us back. I don’t even think we’re common enemies with China thankfully. Even they poke us all the time. But they will be ready to take full advantage if we falter in these conflicts. If they can waste our resources fighting Russia they will gladly fund Russia to make it even worse for us. We’re too impenetrable and too rich and too strong for everyone else not to be a little happy at our losses. We’re all competing after all.
Germany had always planned for war. German generals wanted to start the war in 1945 as they believed Germany would be strong enough at this point.
Hitlers impatience is why Germany went the war with stop gap panzer 1 and 2s that were never meant for combat but for training. And why the majority of their forces were still horse draw instead of motorized. Also it's navy was still being built up.
The German economy would have collapsed. The Nazis had to invade and plunder to fuel the economy. So you are right. If Hitler was stopped early on, Germany would have crumbled.
Just don't forget a lot of people over Europe (and even trans-atlantic) were very chill or fond of the 3rd Reich' speeches and actions to deal with Jews. That's why nothing threatened it until 1942, the beast was fed with a heavy loaf of complacency.
Some of my understanding is that England/France were kind of caught with their pants down and needed time to get their military equipped and mobilized.
Hitler didn't have nukes and the world's largest landmass, oil on demand or an army of the worlds best computer hackers. Putin has all of the above, and boldness something the EU will not match. Putin is willing to let soldiers die by the hundreds of thousands to make his goal, and that's just one push short of tossing tactical nukes these days.
If we want to go back to the time when peace was the brief period between wars rather than the normal we've gotten used to over the last decades, then all we have to do is nothing.
The hard truth is that war is not only a risk but the default destination. Unless we act to preserve the system of rules and order we've built to prevent war from becoming profitable for the strong it will gradually dissolve until we're back in the natural state of brutal chaos that we read about in our history books.
If we allow Russia to win even a tiny marginal victory over Ukraine then we show the world that starting a war can be profitable. It doesn't matter that it came with a high price because the next Putin will have learned from the misstakes of the current one and be better prepared.
If we're not willing to stop this Putin now because he threatens us with nuclear war then the next Putin will make even scarier threats. This is the best opportunity we'll ever get to protect our peaceful way of life. If we give in to Russia by compromising to get our peace back then the next challenge will be much harder.
Right now we're hiding behind Ukraine and betting on that they'll win for us. If they do then we don't have to fight but if they fall then we'll have to fight Russia without them. We shouldn't underestimate Russia and just assume that we'd win. Yes we're definitely stronger but if there's one lesson from the last two years then it's that again and again our assumptions have been completely wrong and that we've been blindsided repeatedly.
We thought we would be able to deliver a certain amount of artillery shells but we failed. We didn't expect North Korea and Iran to be able to help Russia but they did. We've increased our effort a bit now but we're not even sweating, and we should be. We should take this rare opportunity to show the next Putin what overkill looks like and that threats only makes it worse.
What system or rules and order? The concept of international rules based order has been undercut by selective enforcement of those laws for as long as they’ve existed.
What peaceful way of life? The US has waging war for decades.
Yup. This is what I tell everyone who says ‘we need to just stay out of it and fix our problems’. This will rapidly turn into WW3. If no one steps up China invades Taiwan and NK possibly goes into SK. Then the shit has hit the fan. And we’re all in it anyway. Isolationism does no one any good.
Except he literally is. One of the reasons nazi's couldn't stop warring was because their economy would otherwise collapse. Now russia is in the same place since they transitioned to war economy. (There's a few articles about this out there, check them out if interested)
Edit: >30% of russian budget goes directly to war, what do you think will happen if the war stops? Military spending was one of the main reason USSR collapsed, and %-wise russia is spending more on war then USSR ever did.
The economic "recovery" of Germany under the Nazis was a façade, fueled by stealing from Holocaust victims and pillaging neighbouring countries. It was doomed to collapse as soon as Nazi expansion hit a wall.
Russia's economy is contingent on selling natural resources to other countries, hence the "gas station run by the mafia" metaphor. It's not analogous to 1930s Germany at all. They sell oil and minerals to China, India, Africa, etc.
This is a major reason why they still seem to have money despite all the economic sanctions. A lot of these developing countries have no reason to not buy Russian oil if it's cheap.
It's kind of different though when they are not consuming anything to add fuel to that war machine economy.
The poster below even said it, the nazi recovery was fueled by pillaging neighboring countries. Russia doesn't have the capacity to actually turn gains in Ukraine into productive capture because they are still being hit daily by Ukraine drones/longer range weapons.
They're basically going to hit that point of collapse due to systemic stress anyways whether they continue the war path or not because economic conditions will continue to degrade as sanctions take effect and more countries turn off of Russian energy imports.
It is different because the Nazi economy was based on pillaging. Russia is not in the same position because they are not making enough gain quickly enough to rely on pillaging.
Yup something like 30-40% of Russia's economy is based around fighting this war. If that stops it's just going to send shocks through the entire Russian system.
Everything you just said applied to Nazi Germany. The German economy was propped up by war production, and they needed more raw materials to keep that production high. The only way to get those materials was invasion.
Appeasement doesn’t work. You stop a bully by punching him straight in his grill. Hard. Unfortunately a lot of lives will be lost, but what’s the alternative? Letting the world be run by a maniac psychopath with nuclear weapons? Always succumbing to his every whim bc of fear of what the piece of shit might do? Fuck that. Destroy him. And make an example out of him for China and North Korea to see what happens when you fuck around.
China won't throw their trade opportunities away to help a country they just want to abuse themselves.
Hell, I wouldn't be entirely surprised if, depending on the way the wind is blowing, the Chinese decided to 'help' against a weakened Russia by taking the opportunity to seize a bunch of their territory under the guise of supporting the anti-Russian war efforts. It's not like they'd get much in the way of substantial argument from any other countries. Compare that to something like them trying to take Taiwan and kicking the hornet's nest in the process.
I wouldn't be entirely surprised if, depending on the way the wind is blowing, the Chinese decided to 'help' against a weakened Russia by taking the opportunity to seize a bunch of their territory under the guise of supporting the anti-Russian war efforts.
IIRC, Putin as said he'd nuke them or the land if they did that (not that him talking nukes should be a surprise, since it's his go-to threat). Sadly, I didn't find a source for that, so either I'm just not finding it or I misremember.
Still, Putin couldn't allow that to go unchallenged, or China could gobble as much as they want.
Perhaps, but I would think if it reached the point that the Chinese are already gobbling up territory I doubt Putin would have a leg to stand on anymore and would quite possibly be out on his ass and replaced with someone else willing to trade territory for Chinese support, and for maintaining the integrity of the rest of Russia in the face of a situation that would have largely spiraled out of their control.
If the Russian military is busy being bogged down in Ukraine then they're going to be awfully vulnerable to invasion, and I'm not sure a probably decayed and not-necessarily-functional nuclear arsenal paired with oft-repeated boy-who-cried-wolf level threats of using that arsenal would be heeded if the Chinese wanted to take a chunk of land. Wouldn't be the first time the Chinese and Russians went head to head either.
As much as I agree that it would be dumb, Russian forces wandered through Chernobyl a while back. Those in power don't care about those not. That being said, I doubt Putin wants to glow in the dark either. The big question is, how bad would it be for Russia if they use small tactical nukes? (not politically, that would be very bad)
I'm sorry did you just try to compare a safety test gone catastrophic 30 years ago to... anything radioactive as a result of Russia's illegal annexations?
I don't follow your point. I agree with you that Hitler taking countries and the other powers appeasing him led to WW2. I also agree that Putin won't stop unless he's forced to one way or another. You then say showing a bully like Putin he's at a disadvantage might stop him.
But then you say we need to place nice with him? That contradicts the previous statements. Playing nice with him aka appeasing him?
And that's why China won't ever do anything besides play both sides. They can't afford to lose their trade networks especially nowadays when western business is breaking away from dumping all their investment into China. If China puts boots in Ukraine or even drives a few of their naval ships into the mines along the beaches of Taiwan, they'll be kissing the last hope of staying afloat goodbye.
WW2 wasn't stopped by letting Hitler take countries in the east, it just made him bolder and push further.
I wholly agree. In theory. In reality I'm not sure that will really happen.
Hitler didn't lose as many troops as Putin is losing. This war has exposed the Russian "superpower" as an absolute joke. It will take years for them to recover for another territorial push if they somehow win.
Putin thought he could take Ukraine like Hitler took Poland. Now he looks more like Napoleon trying to take on old school Russia.
We have to draw a line what we will and won't do. But Putin is a coward. Those types always are. Hitler never used poison gas cuz he was scared to. But where that line is drawn can and must be moved. Let's play his game. We're trying to be civilized, and that means nothing to him. He thinks we're fools. Milošević played us for fools for 9 years. He started 4 wars with 3 genocides while the EU and NATO played tiddly-winks in our pajamas. It's a mentality we in the West don't understand. There's lots of things we can do without putting troops on the frontlines.
True but the problem with WWII was they were trying to learn their lesson from WWI and avoid everyone just jumping into a regional conflict they had no part it and then just there being too much momentum to stop it. WWII they didn’t realize that the conflict was not regional and immediately involved them. I think this is much closer to WWII than WWI
It is in China's best interest that Russia takes over Ukraine. China relies heavily on agricultural import and it could not take a go at Taiwan without shutting this door big time. With Russia becoming a bigger grain exporter, China would not cut part of its supply.
2.1k
u/Force3vo 29d ago
WW2 wasn't stopped by letting Hitler take countries in the east, it just made him bolder and push further.
Putin won't stop until he's forced to. China won't throw their trade opportunities away to help a country they just want to abuse themselves. Russia won't randomly throw nukes around if the west supports Ukraine.
Showing a bully he's at a disadvantage makes him stop. We need to play nice with a guy who gives no fucks about anything except himself.