i get shivers down my arms when thinking about that this event has really happened,its not some madeup hollywood story..
and it really proves that...
powerhungry idiots sitting at the high posts are idiots.
they send out innocent people to do their battles and make people in thousands die like flies.
for what?
fighting some stupid war.
its sad that humans love figthing and killing other humans..
Right! It wasn't like, y'know...somebody had invaded Holland & the rest of Western Europe & Y'know was treating the population in the most appalling manner...
sharepowerhungry idiots sitting at the high posts are idiots.
they send out innocent people to do their battles and make people in thousands die like flies.
for what?
fighting some stupid war.
Yea! Them Nazi's weren't bothering anybody, why didn't we just leave them alone..
share>what is it good for?
Ending Nazi rule? And Japanese genocide? And slavery?
Other than that, not much, genius.
Except that the war could have been headed off long before 1939 with tougher actions in response to Hitler's aggressions, not to mention starting with the terms of the Treaty of Versailles. That pretty much set the stage for the next war. There were a lot of things that could have been done long before the actual fighting started; but, far too often, military solutions are far quicker. By 1939, it was too late for diplomacy and other alternatives.
The lesson that is too often forgotten, in regards to WW2, is that the cost of war is way too high and that more needs to be done to bring people together, rather than force them into conflict, which leads to repeating the same mistakes.
"Fortunately, Ah keep mah feathers numbered for just such an emergency!"
I think you rather missed the irony of the OP. Violence of some sort was inevitable, once Hitler and the Nazis came to power. It only takes one side to pick a fight. But it would have been possible to end the matter with quite a small action early on. When Hitler remilitarized the Rhineland in 1936 a couple of French divisions could have settled the matter, and the loss of face by Hitler's government might very well have led to his fall from power -- the political opposition to the Nazis in Germany were waiting for just that to give them leverage. But post-WWI extreme pacifist sentiment just exactly like that of the OP made it politically impossible for the British or French to act when only a small effort would have been needed, and the loss of life could have been confined to perhaps a few hundred. So, the Germans got away with it, had time to finish rearming, and launched a war of aggression that killed tens of millions.
shareActually, the lack of incentive to squash Hitler before he was completely unified and militarized has a slightly insidious quality that didn't have a lot to do with keeping the peace. France and Britain had an opportunity early on to sign a mutual defense pact with the USSR, that would have had the ability to surround Hitler before he could have invaded most of Europe. What the British were hoping was that Hitler would have headed east and taken on the Soviets, thereby taking out two birds with one stone. In the end the gamble didn't pay off.
What's more, there really was no incentive for France or Britain to attack Hitler over the Rhineland. Keeping Germany demilitarized was seen as a fool's errand, as the Versailles treaty was becoming counterproductive by the 1930s. There was really no legal incentive for them to hold Germany accountable for it (seeing as the Rhineland aspect existed more because of the Treaty of Locarno, which France had already violated). The French had tried occupying the area before, and it didn't work out so well. Besides, were they to start a war with Hitler over Germany invading Germany?
In the end, the appeasement wasn't so much about complete pacifism as it was long term structural rearmament. Not to mention Chamberlain was looking at only France as a military ally, the USSR as a possible enemy, and all this after only twenty years since the last devastating war. Strategically, he made the best move he could with limited options. And even if they had gotten rid of Hitler early on, war would most likely have still broken out eventually between Western Europe and the Soviets.
~ I'm a 21st century man and I don't wanna be here.
‘War, Nobby. Huh! What’s it good for?’ he said.share
‘Dunno, sarge. Freeing slaves, maybe?’
‘Absol- Well, okay.’
‘Defending yourself from a totalitarian aggressor?’
‘All right, I’ll grant you that, but -’
‘Saving civilization against a horde of -’
‘It doesn’t do any good in the long run is what I’m saying, Nobby, if you’d listen for five seconds together,’ said Fred Colon sharply.
‘Yeah, but in the long run what does, sarge?’
Well, Davey boy, I'll admit to some grudging respect for you- I'm a Terry Pratchett fan too. They were planning a TV series about the Watch- don't know what's happened to it.
Trust me. I know what I'm doing.
The absence of war is not peace.
"Leave the gun, take the cannoli"
When the regime of one country invades other countries, imprisons millions of innocent civilians and murders them, and is trying to take over a large part of the world, you either let them have their way or you do something to try to stop them. Stopping them is what war is good for.
share