Re: Hilter's downfall - when did it start?

narrledudh@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:

And my "unneeded history" lesson was in response to the apparent lack of
seriousness to that simple comment. The fact is that in 1939 Hitler dared
to invade Poland in face of a threat of war.

And that turned out, in the long run, to be a mistake.

It was the action that led to a state of war. Perhaps it was a bit of a
gamble, considering that they had violated the Treaty of Versailles by
militarizing the Rhineland, but and by annexing Czechoslovakia. They
probably thought that Britain was bluffing with its threat to go to war
over Poland. Perhaps they miscalculated Britain's resolve, or maybe they
thought they could handle Britain and France militarily. Whichever the
case may be, they did get away with it at first, and it was events that
took place much later that make it look like a bad move in retrospect.


When Britain and France
carried out the threat and declared war, the Germans rolled right over
their forces, leading to their evacuation at Dunkirk. They later turned on
the soviets and quickly advanced hundreds of miles into the USSR. No one
can dispute that it was an idiotic move to open up a war on two fronts, but
the fact is that they were on w winning streak for two years before their
fortunes reversed.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I don't dispute that they were on a winning streak for a while.

Well that was my point. The question was when things started to go bad for
Hitler, and I thing that you have to consider that, luck or not, he was
indeed in a winning streak for a while, rolling over Czechoslovakia,
Poland, France, Belgium, Netherlands, and the USSR, and the German navy
was a threat to Britain's supply lines and the Luftwaffe had Britain on its
knees. Despite the eventual outcome, and despite the idiotic decisions and
blunders made later that led to his downfall, I have trouble accepting that
his downfall began back when he started oppressing the Jews, or when he
invaded Poland. Hindsight may tell us that calling off the assault on
Britain when they were so close to destroying the RAF was the critical
point, or attacking the Soviet Union to open a two front war was the
critical point, but even then, they rolled over a lot of territory before
being stopped and pushed back.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: why did Hitler Kill jews ?
    ... >>and Britain, and apparently he did feel that way about Britain at least, ... >>actually demonstrating he was no threat to those two countries. ... France was already ... treaties had led to in that war, and implicit threats that if attacked he ...
    (soc.history.war.world-war-ii)
  • Re: Back to Feudalism in the Early Middle Ages
    ... and declared war on Germany. ... Actually, altruism does come into it, for as soon as Germany threatened to invade Poland, in order to stop her, Britain declared that would be understood as an act of war. ...
    (soc.history.medieval)
  • Re: "I am both Muslim and Christian" Ann Holmes Redding
    ... Nevertheless to war we went. ... you believe Hitler would have conquered all of Europe and would ... have thought Britain is only a small island I let them go. ... was a direct threat or an indirect threat (by controlling the majority ...
    (uk.religion.christian)
  • Re: Iranians Value Freedom More Than Americans
    ... him and thus living under the greatest threat from him. ... Kuwait and multi-year war with Iran was all the proof I needed. ... Hardly a criticism of the Democrats. ...
    (misc.news.internet.discuss)
  • Re: Putin - Bush
    ... because it ended the war quickly without the need for a costly invasion. ... Consciousness is neither above or below the laws. ... Therefore an actual threat is ... Saddam could have killed many persons. ...
    (alt.lang.asm)