re: WWII buffs: let's talk about Germany's biggest strategic blunder

Good points.

Why did Britain and France refuse Hitler's offers of peace? They surely did not trust Hitler's Germany to make peace for all time. They probably suspected that Hitler would attack the West right after he conquered the Soviet Union.

quote:

---

WWII buffs: let's talk about Germany's biggest strategic blunder
One word: Sitzkrieg. Phony war.

Britain & France, while technically in a state of war with Nazi Germany (primarily due to their pact obligations to Poland) sat on their hands between September, 1939 and March, 1940.

---

No, they were in a state of war, not just technically. And the British are the ones who put themselves in the position of being tied to war with a German/Polish conflict, which actually INCREASED the obstinacy and unwillingness of the Poles to pursue diplomacy to resolve issues with Germany. The British likewise knew they had no actual means of defending Poland, this simply allowed them to engage in a "justified" war against Germany for their own power interests.

And the British had designs on Norway as well, the Germans simply preempted them because they, too, could read maps. The war was not stagnant and the British and French weren't simply going to wait it out and then make peace with Germany. They had offers from Germany and refused them. To insinuate that it was Germany's successful operations in Norway and then west in Europe that inflamed the war and dismantled any opportunity at a peaceful resolution is patently absurd.

quote:

---

I've always understood that Hitler, and many Germans in general, felt embarrassed about how WW1 had finished and how Britain and France laid the sole blame and burden of the war on Germany.

---

They weren't simply embarrassed, they were resentful. And it wasn't simply the war guilt clause, the Treaty of Versailles was extremely harsh and resulted in an impoverished, humiliated, and powerless Germany that was completely subservient to France and Britain. It led to domestic political chaos and the legitimate rise of Marxism as a political force in Germany. The French moved in and occupied the Ruhr in 1923 in a domineering fashion in order to seize German materials when Germany fell behind on its war reparations. The Weimar governments were awarded virtually zero concessions to by the British and French states even 10 years after the war, which resulted in an opening for more extreme factions like the NSDAP and the Communists to gain wider support from the German people.

quote:

---

Being the egomaniac that he was I have to believe that France and Britain would've inevitably been targeted (if he had succeeded in Russia)

---

You're basing that simply on the perception of Hitler as an egomaniac. That in itself should indicate that you have very poor reason to believe that. Most WWII historians will concede that Hitler's sentiments toward Britain were sincere. He even offered to permanently concede Alsace-Lorraine to the French as he had South Tyrol to the Italians to ensure border security between France and Germany for generations. There are numerous references to indicate that Hitler's desire for peace and permanent borders with his Western neighbors were sincere. He sought alliances with both France and Britain. If you understand Hitler's worldview you would understand that he viewed France and Britain as racial kin to the Germans and as upright nations. Even in Mein Kampf Hitler mentions this and that Lebensraum for Germany cannot be found in the West.

In 1935 Hitler signed a naval pact with Great Britain that ensured Germany's navy would not reach a size greater than 1/3 that of the British navy as an indication that Britain's power of the seas and the key to her security would not be threatened by Germany. A lesson learned from the Kaiser's ambition to build the High Seas Fleet to challenge British hegemony of the seas. Hitler sought to convey to the British that German interests did not lay in challenging Britain by openly conceding sea power to Britain, which also afforded Britain military leverage over Germany since Britain could control the passages in and out of the North Sea.

Again, WWII had much less sensational origins than most seem to believe. It wasn't some unique in history occasion of a madman trying to take over the world. That is pop history and not reality.

If you study British foreign policy theories and doctrines at the time, and what they had been for quite some time at that point, you will better understand that their clutching to their hegemonic British Empire status and fear of what a united and strong Germany could mean to the power structure in Europe and the world, was very much an integral piece to the war's calamitous tumble into inevitability.

it did not work that way for them , they gave Spain weapons and then they said no thanks to Hitlers war. Spain was not a power in ww2 and would have been destroyed, the fact is, Hitler split the war to three fronts and it stretched his ability to produce war materials and logistics, that is why. Not Spain.

quote:

---

After the French surrendered, Hitler made some half-hearted overtures toward Britain for peace. These were the ones rebuffed by Churchill.

---

Instead of using "rebuffed" could we say "refused"? You're making it sound as if the English spitefully and wrongly snubbed a generous peace overture by … ADOLF HITLER, a man whose credibility as a promise keeper was, at that point, about as strong as a wet tissue paper. Churchill--and he was hardly alone--knew that Britain had no good option but to continue the war and hope (wait) for America's entry into the conflict. The alternative was to ceed Europe to Germany, from the coast of France to the steppes of Asia.

quote:

---

This was really inexcusable

---

Indeed.

You're forgetting about Gibralter.

quote:

---

The alternative was to ceed Europe to Germany, from the coast of France to the steppes of Asia

---

This is invalid reasoning. How was this the alternative when the Germans made offers prior to the invasion of France? Also, this was prior to any German advance into the Soviet Union. And it's a tad ironic that the supposed impetus for the war was the salvation of a non-democratic Polish regime which was ultimately invaded by the Soviet Union two weeks later and then turned over to them after the war. Now you claim that peace couldn't be had because Germany might then attack the Soviet Union and advance toward Eurasia? Why were the British so concerned with the territorial security of a state like the Soviet Union? Or is that not indicative of Britain being motivated by power politics and the fear of a strong Germany asserting itself on the continent? Particularly after the Soviet Union invaded all the Baltic nations, Finland, and Poland and openly supported an international effort to overthrow the Western systems of government to complete the global worker's revolution? None of this was seen as threatening or egregious enough to go to war with the USSR, but Germany's territorial disputes with Poland were?

And it also is invalid to unequivocally suppose that Germany would incorporate France into the Reich after their defeat. After the Franco-Prussian War, France was not incorporated into the Reich. The Germans did claim Alsace-Lorraine. That was the only territorial dispute of significance, which Hitler was willing to concede permanently to France prior to the war in exchange for peace assurances. Even after France's defeat, the peace treaty allowed an unoccupied southern France, which was only occupied after French collapses in North Africa.

The return of territorial sovereignty to France could have been a necessary precondition of peace for Britain, and it likely would have been accepted minus Alsace-Lorraine, but the British never offered anything in response to Germany's proposals.

I will admit that:

1. I've not read the whole thread,
2. Judging from the post, you're likely more learned on matters pertaining to World War II.

That said, I find it hard to believe that the failure to woo Spain into the Second World War had had much of an effect.

In much the same way as the North fought the War of Northern Aggression with one hand tied behind it's back, and as long as a President (like Lincoln) was committed to keeping the union of the States together, the South had no chance in defeating the North. The reason, in its simplest terms, is resources.

In much the same way, a combination of the might of Germany, Japan, and Italy (and in view of your argument, throw Spain in as well) was never going to whip the industrialized world, absent the discovery of the atomic bomb by one of them prior to one of us - as long as "said industrialized war" was dead set on that Axis combo doing just that - whipping the rest of the world.

Had Hitler not invaded Russia, the coast of southern France would have likely had 3-4 times the defense and resources it possessed in the summer of 44. The war would have lasted much longer (again, the atomic bomb was for sure a game changer, and would have been no matter who got it first).

While not putting more pressure on Franco's Spain to assist the Axis powers may have been a mistake, all things being equal (again, ESPECIALLY considering our discovery of the atomic bomb), it changes nothing.