Who started WW2?

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

It is only exhausted if no one has anything to say. If Desert Fox or anyone else has something to say then it will go on and continue to be discuessed. Us admin will determine when a thread is exhausted and should be closed.

Besides most of the time a thread is made off topic because someone comes in here and says something really stupid that has nothing to do with the topic and we all know who those people are.... dont we hussars?

[Henk]

Well the thing is that the whole thing of who started WW2 boils down to the fact that the treaty of Versailles were the one who started the wheel to turn and Hitler only used it to gain power and get what he want, but the war was payback in my oppinion on those who wanted to destroy Germany and now one can say that the Treaty of Versailles did not start this whole thing. The war also showed what one human can do to a other human and the hate that there is toward other nations.

It was a lession for the people then and now to see what we are capable of.

[syscom3]

I saw a documentary several months ago, that said Neville Chamberlin was "accomodating" towards Hitler in '37 and '38 because he knew Britain and France needed to rearm with modern weapons. He felt it as better to deal with him to buy some time rather than rush pell-mell into a war neither countries were prepeared for.

Any comments?

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

I believe that had a part to do with it, but at the same time Hitler was a very charismatic man and I think he was able to work Chamberlain through his fingers.

[Henk]

Yes, Chamberlain was stupid to believe Hitler and go back and say everyting is great. He was just to scared to go against Hitler.

[Dac]

Originally Posted by syscom3

I saw a documentary several months ago, that said Neville Chamberlin was "accomodating" towards Hitler in '37 and '38 because he knew Britain and France needed to rearm with modern weapons. He felt it as better to deal with him to buy some time rather than rush pell-mell into a war neither countries were prepeared for.

Any comments?

I think militarily Britain and France were in a superior position to the Germans in 1937-38 but the political will wasn't there in either country to take on Hitler. People like Churchill were considered warmongers in Britain because of the loses of WW I and political instability in France paralized the government through much of the 1930s. Hitler was a gambler of the first order, and if his bluffs had been called in the 1930s I don't know if WW II would have happened.

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

I agree. If in 1939 the French had just moved into Germany, they probably could have stopped Hitler then.

[Henk]

I think the French would not have been able of doing so. They had their own problems in their armed forces to worry about and they focused to much on the Maginot Line than anything else.

[plan_D]

All the German commanders of the day realised that Britain and France could have defeated Germany in September, 1939. All of the Wehrmachts armour was in Poland at the time, and the German West Wall was not what propaganda told everyone. Heavy artillery could have knocked it out without any harm to itself.

[Henk]

Yes true plan D, but Hitler knew they would not, because the Allies had their own problems and could not afford to take the risk in doing so, but they also did not know what the German west wall were like and they did not know if all of the German Army were in Poland.

[plan_D]

Hitler did believe that Britain and France would react, he dreaded the idea of a Western reaction. And that fear seemed fulfilled when Britain and France did declare war. We know now, however, that it wasn't. The Allied problem was Germany, Henk. Only Britain saw it's military as somewhat out-dated in equipment, but it was the most advanced in motorisation.

German propaganda was excellent. The West Wall was made out to be invincible and any attack foolish. But this does not take blame from the Allied forces. They should have done extensive recon on the wall, and tested it's fire capability with artillery strikes on it's fortifications. As we know, from hindsight, the wall had no counter-battery ability at all. And would have been smashed to pieces with little or no effort.

The Allies knew all of the armour was in Poland. They knew all of the army wasn't. But that doesn't mean anything. If the Allies had forced another front sooner, then Germany would have been split.

But of course, I say this with a benefit of hindsight.

[Henk]

Yes, the UK were better equipped than France. Hitler made the propaganda so that when he does do something that would push the Allies over the edge he had a back up to help keep them away. The German West Wall was not so bad, but it was mostly small forts and a lot of pill boxes and dragon teeth. Well we all know this period where the Allies did nothing as the phony war and why they did not do anything is still a mystery.

The French political problem was one big horror story and this caused the French Army to be in the state it was in. The UK thought like the French that Germany would never attack France and also not go past the Maginot Line. The French Minister of defense was really old and he also thought that the Germans would not go past the Maginot Line and thus he put most of his forces near the Maginot Line and not to the North where the Germans attacked France. The German Luftwaffe played a great role in the Blitzkrieg and thus made the success of the German Army even more greater.

I think that Germany would just have launched a air attack on France if they tried to attack Germany and would send their Army to support the West Wall.

We can only now say this and that after the war, but only Hitler, the UK and France knew what the situation was and what went through their heads at that time. Hitler had the guts, he took the risk and it proved very successfull at the time.

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

It was all a bluff and Hitler won the bluff.

[plan_D]

As I understand it, Germany did not expect Britain to attack Germany directly in 1939 nor did Poland. All of Europe expecting the aid of the Allies to come in the force of the French Army, with the Royal Air Force providing the only British support on the continent.
If this is the case, which it so obviously is, France should have been driving force and wedge into the German defences on the West Wall. And the RAF would be the supporting arm of the force, not any kind of striking component.

The British Army was ill-equipped, and was severely understrength compared to the other great super-powers of the world. Other than small arms, the French Army was generally better equipped than the British. However, the British power came from it's mobilisation. They did need more powerful and faster armour though. The reason the French should have been the driving force was because they were the largest army in Europe, and they were the greatest threat to Germany. Britain had to ship it's forces across the Channel - in 1939 this would be too late. It would be right to assume that Britain would have supported with the RAF only.

The French political situation was a great reason in their failure. They were underequipped because of misorders and under-orders of new equipment. But most importantly, in both France and Britain was not technical equipment but tactical thinking. Both should have been aggressive, and both should have used their mobile armour more like the Germans. This idea wasn't new to either of them, in fact it was the British and French that laid the foundations for the modern tank warfare which Germany perfected in World War II.

The Luftwaffe was out-numbered when over France during Fall Gelb. They sent 2,000 planes to Poland during Fall Weiss. Had France attacked, the Luftwaffe would have been overwhelmed. And the Heeres could not withdraw so easily to the West Wall, they would have to disengage from the Polish forces leaving potential pockets and encirclements open.
The French did 'attack' Germany in the wars only French offensive into the Saarland. The Germans didn't do anything as a reaction because they didn't want to provoke the French into a greater assault.

As for the West Wall:

"I soon realized what a gamble the Polish campaign had been, and the grave risks which were run by our High Command. The second-class troops holding the Wall were badly equipped and inadequately trained, and the defenses were far from being the impregnable fortifications pictured by our propaganda. Concrete protection of more than three feet was rare, and as a whole the positions were by no means proof against heavy caliber shelling. Few of the strongpoints were sited to fire in enfilade and most of them could have been shot to pieces by direct fire, without the slightest risk to the attackers. The West Wall had been built in such a hurry that many of the positions were sited on forward slopes. The antitank obstacles were of trivial significance, and the more I looked at the defenses the less I could understand the completely passive attitude of the French."

- Maj.Gen.F.W.Von Mellenthin.

[syscom3]

Originally Posted by plan_D

......

The British Army was ill-equipped, and was severely understrength compared to the other great super-powers of the world. Other than small arms, .....

What other superpowers where there in 1939?