4 ms·

I know it is not a popular view but I think WWII was a major mistake. We could of course not have stopped Hitler's initial actions, but it was the West's choice

I know it is not a popular view but I think WWII was a major mistake. We could of course not have stopped Hitler's initial actions, but it was the West's choice to wage war against Hitler. I think that was a mistake. The rational was to keep Poland and the Czech republic free. However at the end of the war neither country was free. They had fallen under the Soviet sphere of influence. The goals they set hence failed. They KNEW Hitler planned to attack Russia. He had spoken for years about that. That meant they would go through Poland. The sneaky but rational solution would have been to sacrifice Poland temporary and let Hitler attack Russia. Russia and Germany would have worn each other out. At the end a heavily built up allied military could have marched in and cleaned up.

vearwhershuh 7y ago
I know it is not a popular view but I think WWII was a major mistake It's a plenty popular idea, but people won't say so publicly because of social pressure: The Greatest Generation, The Good War, etc.
- icebraining 7y ago
  The Greatest Generation is an US concept, which only entered the war after it was attacked.
the_af 7y ago
Note that while this wasn't widely known in the West at the time and therefore cannot be their justification for going to war against Hitler, Nazi Germany's "Generalplan Ost" [0] (their "General Plan for the East", a plan of global genocide so vast it defies belief) called for the almost total extermination of the populations of most Slavic countries, Russia and Poland included. If I remember correctly, the quota for Poland was 80% Poles -- and note I say Poles, not Jewish Poles -- to be exterminated. So on the one hand, Cold War Poland ended up a puppet of the Soviets. Repression of dissidents, etc. But the Poles were alive. On the other hand, had Nazi Germany won and completed their plan there would be no Poles left to complain about their lack of freedom. So was WWII really a mistake? ---- [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generalplan_Ost https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generalplan_Ost
- socialdemocrat 7y ago
  Except I doubt it would ever have happened. Germany would have struggled mightily with Russia. Likely Germany and Russia would have fought each other to some sort of standstill. They would have bled each other out and which point allied forces could have moved in and beaten both Germany and Russia. We could have avoided the whole cold war and east block.
SergeAx 7y ago
History doesn't tolerate what-ifs, but just in case. Soviet Union wouldn't stand war with Germany without Allies. Hitler would get access to all the Soviet's resources: cheap slaves' workforce, food, oil, coal, steel, Arctic and Far East seaports. Then attack on the US together with Japan, both East and West coast. The US would not have a chance. Game over.
- the_af 7y ago
  As far as I know, current consensus is that the Soviet Union would have defeated Nazi Germany regardless of Western intervention, it just would have taken more time (and a lot more casualties) to get to Berlin. It really is a case where the Nazis picked a fight they just couldn't win.
  - SergeAx 7y ago
    Current consensus where? I live in Russia, we currently have a state-induced wave of unhealthy "patriotic" hype here, mostly based on WW2 events. But even in these circumstances I rather got an opinions like "without West we wouldn't make it against Hitler" in my circles. The keyword is "lend-lease" [0]. About 5% of weapons for 1942 Soviet offensive operations, decisive for the final outcome, were US-made. And 80% of cars and trucks. And lots of raw material. [0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lend-Lease https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lend-Lease
    - the_af 7y ago
      Consensus in the West, by historians not trying to score a political point about current world affairs. Lend-lease, while critical help, is often overplayed in the West as a way to diminish the Soviet contribution to the war -- this is in itself the legacy of historical views shaped by the Cold War and (unsurprisingly) by ex Wehrmacht officers who collaborared with the West after WW2. There's no credible mainstream analysis that has Germany winning against the Soviet Union. In fact, it is often argued that by starting Barbarossa, Hitler effectively lost the war. Germany didn't have the manpower, logistics capabilities or equipment to take on the Soviet Union. That's not to say it wouldn't have cost the Soviets a lot more time, effort and bloodshed to defeat the Nazi war machine without the help of the Western Allies. I'm not Russian and I'm completely uninterested in how current Russia and Putin are spinning this, by the way.
jcranmer 7y ago
> We could of course not have stopped Hitler's initial actions Germany was not ready to fight a war in 1937, 1938, or even 1939, when it actually invaded Poland. Had the West actually responded to German aggression with a land assault, even as late as the actual invasion of Poland, then it's rather likely that the war could have been cleaned up before the Soviet Union would have invaded Poland. Furthermore, an appropriate Western response to actually supporting the Central European states would probably have given the USSR pause before invading, as it would have demonstrated that the defensive treaties were not mere pieces of paper.
- UnFleshedOne 7y ago
  I don't think decisive action was possible after WWI -- everybody still remembered the meatgrinder and what a web of defensive treaties led to.
  - jcranmer 7y ago
    > what a web of defensive treaties led to Ironically, none of the countries in WWI were actually obliged to enter into the war by virtue of their treaties. The Triple Alliance didn't kick in unless one of the parties was "without direct provocation on their part, [...] attacked or [...] engaged in a war with two or more Great Powers nonsignatory to the present treaty" (or Italy attacked by France alone). But France and Britain declared war after Germany did, so the "two or more" doesn't kick in. Not to mention that the "direct provocation" is an ample loophole for anyone wanting to wriggle out of the treaty (as Italy, in fact did). The Triple Entente wasn't a single treaty. The Franco-Russian Alliance was the strongest, requiring France and Russia to attack Germany should Germany attack one of them or merely mobilize in response to any of the Triple Alliance mobilizing. But again, this is a defensive trigger, and Russia mobilized before Germany did [1], so the clause didn't kick in. The Anglo-French Entente was not backed by any military alliance treaty, nor was the Anglo-Russian Entente. The Treaty of London merely guaranteed Belgian neutrality, and did not oblige anyone to enter into war against someone who violated Belgian neutrality. For extra irony, in WWII, Britain and France went to war against Germany in defense of Poland, with whom they did not have a binding defensive treaty, but not in defense of Czechoslovakia, with whom France did. [1] We know now that Germany actually decided its full mobilization before Russia did, but held back on announcing it just long enough to have the Russian mobilization announce first. In the event, France actually did not mobilize until after Germany mobilized against it, the German military having convinced Kaiser Wilhelm that mobilizing against only Russia was impossible.
8note 7y ago
fortunately the mistake was made, or even more people would have died in the concentration camps.
- socialdemocrat 7y ago
  I don't think that is given. If Germany had sent massive forces towards Russia and there had been no war in the west, France and Britain would have been free to launch a major assault on Germany while German troops where tied down in Russia. They war could very well have ended sooner.
yourapostasy 7y ago
You might find Garet Garrett's writings against World War II interesting [1]. He was not a socialist (he was an ardent anti-communist), which makes his conservative arguments against joining all the more interesting. [1] https://fee.org/people/garet-garrett/ https://fee.org/people/garet-garrett/

vearwhershuh 7y ago

I know it is not a popular view but I think WWII was a major mistake It's a plenty popular idea, but people won't say so publicly because of social pressure: The Greatest Generation, The Good War, etc.

icebraining 7y ago
The Greatest Generation is an US concept, which only entered the war after it was attacked.

the_af 7y ago

Note that while this wasn't widely known in the West at the time and therefore cannot be their justification for going to war against Hitler, Nazi Germany's "Generalplan Ost" [0] (their "General Plan for the East", a plan of global genocide so vast it defies belief) called for the almost total extermination of the populations of most Slavic countries, Russia and Poland included. If I remember correctly, the quota for Poland was 80% Poles -- and note I say Poles, not Jewish Poles -- to be exterminated. So on the one hand, Cold War Poland ended up a puppet of the Soviets. Repression of dissidents, etc. But the Poles were alive. On the other hand, had Nazi Germany won and completed their plan there would be no Poles left to complain about their lack of freedom. So was WWII really a mistake? ---- [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generalplan_Ost https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generalplan_Ost

socialdemocrat 7y ago
Except I doubt it would ever have happened. Germany would have struggled mightily with Russia. Likely Germany and Russia would have fought each other to some sort of standstill. They would have bled each other out and which point allied forces could have moved in and beaten both Germany and Russia. We could have avoided the whole cold war and east block.

SergeAx 7y ago

History doesn't tolerate what-ifs, but just in case. Soviet Union wouldn't stand war with Germany without Allies. Hitler would get access to all the Soviet's resources: cheap slaves' workforce, food, oil, coal, steel, Arctic and Far East seaports. Then attack on the US together with Japan, both East and West coast. The US would not have a chance. Game over.

the_af 7y ago
As far as I know, current consensus is that the Soviet Union would have defeated Nazi Germany regardless of Western intervention, it just would have taken more time (and a lot more casualties) to get to Berlin. It really is a case where the Nazis picked a fight they just couldn't win.
- SergeAx 7y ago
  Current consensus where? I live in Russia, we currently have a state-induced wave of unhealthy "patriotic" hype here, mostly based on WW2 events. But even in these circumstances I rather got an opinions like "without West we wouldn't make it against Hitler" in my circles. The keyword is "lend-lease" [0]. About 5% of weapons for 1942 Soviet offensive operations, decisive for the final outcome, were US-made. And 80% of cars and trucks. And lots of raw material. [0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lend-Lease https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lend-Lease
  - the_af 7y ago
    Consensus in the West, by historians not trying to score a political point about current world affairs. Lend-lease, while critical help, is often overplayed in the West as a way to diminish the Soviet contribution to the war -- this is in itself the legacy of historical views shaped by the Cold War and (unsurprisingly) by ex Wehrmacht officers who collaborared with the West after WW2. There's no credible mainstream analysis that has Germany winning against the Soviet Union. In fact, it is often argued that by starting Barbarossa, Hitler effectively lost the war. Germany didn't have the manpower, logistics capabilities or equipment to take on the Soviet Union. That's not to say it wouldn't have cost the Soviets a lot more time, effort and bloodshed to defeat the Nazi war machine without the help of the Western Allies. I'm not Russian and I'm completely uninterested in how current Russia and Putin are spinning this, by the way.

jcranmer 7y ago

> We could of course not have stopped Hitler's initial actions Germany was not ready to fight a war in 1937, 1938, or even 1939, when it actually invaded Poland. Had the West actually responded to German aggression with a land assault, even as late as the actual invasion of Poland, then it's rather likely that the war could have been cleaned up before the Soviet Union would have invaded Poland. Furthermore, an appropriate Western response to actually supporting the Central European states would probably have given the USSR pause before invading, as it would have demonstrated that the defensive treaties were not mere pieces of paper.

UnFleshedOne 7y ago
I don't think decisive action was possible after WWI -- everybody still remembered the meatgrinder and what a web of defensive treaties led to.
- jcranmer 7y ago
  > what a web of defensive treaties led to Ironically, none of the countries in WWI were actually obliged to enter into the war by virtue of their treaties. The Triple Alliance didn't kick in unless one of the parties was "without direct provocation on their part, [...] attacked or [...] engaged in a war with two or more Great Powers nonsignatory to the present treaty" (or Italy attacked by France alone). But France and Britain declared war after Germany did, so the "two or more" doesn't kick in. Not to mention that the "direct provocation" is an ample loophole for anyone wanting to wriggle out of the treaty (as Italy, in fact did). The Triple Entente wasn't a single treaty. The Franco-Russian Alliance was the strongest, requiring France and Russia to attack Germany should Germany attack one of them or merely mobilize in response to any of the Triple Alliance mobilizing. But again, this is a defensive trigger, and Russia mobilized before Germany did [1], so the clause didn't kick in. The Anglo-French Entente was not backed by any military alliance treaty, nor was the Anglo-Russian Entente. The Treaty of London merely guaranteed Belgian neutrality, and did not oblige anyone to enter into war against someone who violated Belgian neutrality. For extra irony, in WWII, Britain and France went to war against Germany in defense of Poland, with whom they did not have a binding defensive treaty, but not in defense of Czechoslovakia, with whom France did. [1] We know now that Germany actually decided its full mobilization before Russia did, but held back on announcing it just long enough to have the Russian mobilization announce first. In the event, France actually did not mobilize until after Germany mobilized against it, the German military having convinced Kaiser Wilhelm that mobilizing against only Russia was impossible.

8note 7y ago

fortunately the mistake was made, or even more people would have died in the concentration camps.

socialdemocrat 7y ago
I don't think that is given. If Germany had sent massive forces towards Russia and there had been no war in the west, France and Britain would have been free to launch a major assault on Germany while German troops where tied down in Russia. They war could very well have ended sooner.

yourapostasy 7y ago

You might find Garet Garrett's writings against World War II interesting [1]. He was not a socialist (he was an ardent anti-communist), which makes his conservative arguments against joining all the more interesting. [1] https://fee.org/people/garet-garrett/ https://fee.org/people/garet-garrett/