It is strange that the Allies decided to defend Poland which was a very open difficult to defend land (ideal for tank warfare in all honesty) and chose to ignore the Czechs with their well defended borders in the Sudentenland. All I can say is that Munich was the last major mistake of the appeasers. They sold Czechoslovakia down the river by cutting their teeth out only to be betrayed by Hitler anyway. It is a sad testament to those that think they can match aggression with acquiescence.
I've got one radio broadcast today. This one is from the BBC of Alvar Liddell reporting that Germany considers Poland's unresponsiveness to its demands is equivalent to a rejection. But like you said Henkster it is all a farce anyway.
For those who have been with this from the beginning you are about to follow the start of a war that Homer has been spending the last 20 months covering the lead up to. I think he deserves a virtual slap on the back and handshake for the excellent job he has done.
I’ve only recently signed up for this so I’ve missed the previous “issues”. I did watch a fascinating analysis of Hitler’s “internal” thinking and strategy which answered at least one question I’d never been able to resolve, i.e., why he attacked Russia after having war declared upon Germany by Britain and France.
That particular analysis ran this way, i.e., that in the pursuit of “Living Space”, i.e., “Lebenstraum”, (s.p.), Hitler’s entire focus from the very beginning was Russia, not Western Europe or Britain. Indeed he believed (and correctly) that by political infiltration, he’d have France one day join the Axis and he believed, oddly enough, that one day the Brits would become at a minimum “passive” allies. Thus, his calculus was that Britain and France would never declare war over Poland; he saw their allegience to Poland as a feint and believed that once overrun, they would dilly-dally about and then back off once he invaded Russia. Again, rather strangely, the Munich meeting actually served, notwithstanding the signing of the accord, to reinforce Hitler’s view that the Brits wouldn’t intervene on behalf of Poland.
Now, having seen that analysis a couple of months ago, I started to re-evaluate the entire “Hitler/Britain” scenario, particularly in light of the Yalta conference where it comes to light that Stalin had become suspicious of a renewal of Britain’s “Imperial” Designs. We in the U.S. are/were truly out of touch with the other “World” view of Britain as an Imperialist aggressor, or at least “aggregator” which at that point controlled India, Egypt and the Suez canal as well as the oil fields of the Middle East.
If we view the Poland situation through these twin lenses, are we then led to an alternative scenario about Poland, and perhaps even Munich? That is to say........Poland begins to look like a “trap” for Germany, Czechoslovakia, having been the bait dangled before Herr Hitler. Poland then comes into view much like Pearl Harbor, an excuse to go to war with Germany.
If that were the case, while it can’t be said that Hitler was much of a “good” actor here, it might be fairly argued that WWII was actually prompted by England behaving as the “bad” actor. If the analysis reported above is correct to the effect that Hitler’s primary target was Russia and not Western Europe, then it might be correct to assert that Great Britain brought on WWII and that if GB hadn’t intervened, the U.S.S.R would have been toppled and ultimately, the EU would have been formed with Germany, and France being the two leading economic forces therein.
Thus.......we’d see the world situation in Western Europe and Russia much as it is today without WWII having ever happened, or at least not in Europe. The Japanese of course are an entirely different kettle of fish.
Anyway.......it’s an interesting theory.