The Second World War invasion betrayal

1. 64

   maxoxam41posted 8 years ago

   Hitler said roughly that when he first invaded Poland had France or England resisted he would have lost. Now, given his military weakness why would Hitler invade another country? Let's run a parallel, why did Saddam Hussein invade Kuweit? Why did Poroshenko have wings and guts to titillate Russia? Could it be because all of them (including Hitler) disposed of a western ally?
   We now know that the British traitors of the "royal" family saluted hitler as German commoners, that Hussein was backed by the US as is Poroshenko.

   replyreport
   1. 78

      Credence2posted 8 years agoin reply to this

      A standard explanation for the conflicts among nations is that so much of it was poker. Western Europe was not prepared for a protracted conflict and Hitler knew that they lacked the will, military preparedness or not, not withstanding, to challenge him. With all the appeasement taking place through the thirties, it was not an unreasonable conclusion that he came to support. He assessed his adversary and was correct in that assessment. That can explain military aggression in similar circumstances today

      replyreport
      1. 64

         maxoxam41posted 8 years agoin reply to this

         Given the pattern uncovered, how can someone with a little bit of knowledge in history would say that it was poker? It is proven now that England was in collusion with Hitler. It is proven now that the so-called western alliance was aiming at Russia versus Germany. It is proven now that Europe was more afraid of communism versus hitlerism/fascism.

         replyreport
         1. 78

            Credence2posted 8 years agoin reply to this

            I always say that tyrants and would be conquerors (the successful ones) will act with temerity and boldness gambling on the weakness militarily or otherwise of their opponent.
            
            With the focus on WWII:
            Where do you get the information that the British Goverment was collusion with the Third Reich?
            
            I recognize your point that Hitler's global ambitions may have well been fulfilled by his campaigns to the east and had it not been for alliances between the West and Hitler's territorial ambitions, the West could have stayed clear of Hitler's ire.  We (US)were sending "Uncle Joe" armament to butress his fight against Hitler, how are we, as part of the Western alliance targeting Russia, while arming them at the same time? I am aware that Nazi war criminals were counting on this understanding of the universal war against Soviet Communism as a support for their actions when confronted by West and ultimately Nuremberg.
            
            I don't know that I agree with you on this fear of communism over fascism, it was only toward the end of the war that Churchill had was looking ahead to the Nazi defeat and wanted to create a postwar environment where Soviet involvement was to a minimum. But, I believe that the alliances which included the USSR as one of the allies remain solid until the close of the war was in sight.

            replyreport