Thread #18371321
File: Skärmbild 2025-12-12 225834.png (759.6 KB)
759.6 KB PNG
Even if we all agree that the primary responsibility rests on Hitler, can the question still be asked whether the allies could have done more/better to prevent a war?
Questions that I asked myself:
>Why no conference?
Why wasnt there no attempt to resolve the Danzig crisis through an international summit? I know the most common answer is that nobody trusted Hitler after Munich which is fair, but they could have taken a stronger position during these negotiations that war will absolutely be declared if Germany violates it. Regardless if you disagree, you could at least agree that not even attempting a summit is counter-productive if your sole intentions is to preserve peace.
>Why was the "Germany only" pact secret?
The Polish-British alliance signed on August 25th 1939 was public, but in it there was a protocol that was kept secret. This protocol stipulated that Britain would only defend Poland from Germany. My question is why keep it a secret? Why not show the Germans your clear intentions? Germany signed the M-R pact to invade Poland together with the Soviets specifically to minimize the risk of western interference. Perhaps if England had made her intentions more clear it may have been enough to tilt Hitler. Hitler briefly cancelled the invasion on August 25th because he felt that maybe he had misjudged Britains intentions.
I'm saying >may< have been enough to sway Hitler, it's a big maybe, but I see no reason not to make this information public just for an increased chance of finally detering the Germans, unless your actual intentions arent to preserve peace but to give Germany a window to start a war, and a pathway for yourself to fight her.
Again, Germany fired the first bullet, this isnt me seething, I just want a debate.
If you want to be angry over the fact that the debate exists, that's your probilem, especially since you actively participate in the debate.
8 RepliesView Thread
Showing all 8 replies.>>
>>18371321
>can the question still be asked whether the allies could have done more/better to prevent a war?
dismantling germany in 1918, or at least give Rhine to France
once nazis (the guys who made it very clear that their whole ideology is about war and conquest), the war was unavoidable
>>
>>18371321
germshits always get raped by Slavic and French gods
>>
>>
>>18371321
French contingency planning against Germany required an eastern ally to take the "first strike" of the German army. They had difficulty getting along with the Soviet Union for various reasons so that left them with Poland and Czechoslovakia. Since Sudetenland crisis happened as the French aircraft industry was being restructured they've decided to throw them under the bus but that left them with the Poles.
This is why further appeasement wasn't happening, there's a fact that Germany didn't want it(Mussolini wanted to mediate but got told not to).
>>
>>
>>
>>18371321
The allies needed to ally with the axis and team up against the communists. With luck, the communists would have been too pussy to attack into a united allies/axis front, and that would have been the end of it.
>>
>>18371321
He literally said in his party program that there will be war:
>3. We demand land and territory (colonies) to feed our people and to settle our surplus population.
And expanded upon this in Mein Kampf.
Counter him early on if you want to prevent it, duh. Actually enforcing the Treaty of Versailles would be a good start.