• We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Problem with this is that the MR-Pact is probably only a consequence of Western threats of war. Without Western support of Poland the MR-Pact was probably never made.

M-R pact was made before the Western guarantees for Poland were even announced. Hitler postponed the invasion of Poland by a handful of days when he got word about the guarantees.

Large portions of Poland were historically and sometimes even ethnically German, so it was a 'logical' target for expansion.

That's a bit of a stretch. IIRC there was literally 1 (one) Polish commune (Sępólno) in which ethnic Germans held a plurality, and literally zero in which they were majority. And that's from Polish 1923 census, not the 1936 one when Poland also slided into dictatorship with vested interest in tampering with census results.

Historicity is also a bit of stretch, considering that all lost territories were relatively recent Prussian conquests, largely a direct result of partitions of Poland.
 
Last edited:
Germany has gathered the help of Italy and Japan. So appeasement only work if the two latter countries getting something too: China, Southern Europe... The Soviet and US will never accept to let Japan capture whole China! They are not stupid!

It may only works if in the hand of a strong leader.
There are redundant records that prove Chamberlain was a weak leaders. He don't have anything to force Hitler do the Pact, just a piece of paper!

The British already knew from the German, the value of a piece of paper in WW I (on the Belgium neutrality)
 
Last edited:
I have wondered, what would have happened in a completely hypothetical scenario where Germany occupies Danzig Free City area, but doesn't invade any of the main Polish territory. Would war start all the same, or could Allies and maybe even Poles still consider backing down?

There would be "Silesia or War!", "Danzig Corridor or War!". There are so much land he want from Poland, and desire to revenge. Poland has been hostile and captured land from almost all her neighbors, after WW I!

Germany also cannot afford to have an existing hostile Poland to form a second front! Poland had been the second largest land power in the West Europe, after France, until Sept 1939!

So there are few talks about Poland, unlike Czech. Because talks cannot gain land in Poland!
 
Last edited:
In my half-informed opinion (there are certainly much better authorities on the subject, but I'm not totally clueless), Chamberlain had a rather weak hand dealt to him, and made a reasonable but uninspired play out of it.

There were probably much better people for the situation, but he did an adequate enough job considering what he had to work with (inaccurate intelligence information, combined with limited options due to Parliament and the mood of the general public). Clearly no award winner, but not nearly as bad as the reputation he got for it.
 
Clearly no award winner, but not nearly as bad as the reputation he got for it.

Yes, sure. Nobody is perfect. Probably his biggest flaw was that he did not recognize that Hitler is a psychopath but very few actually did since he was just so astonishingly charismatic. E.g. Hitler won Time magazine's man of the year award in 1938 IIRC. This might be after Sudetenland and before Prague when most have seen Hitler as a man of peace. It might look silly retrospectively but back then not much people expected what is going to happen (e.g. Einstein did).
 
Yes, sure. Nobody is perfect. Probably his biggest flaw was that he did not recognize that Hitler is a psychopath but very few actually did since he was just so astonishingly charismatic. E.g. Hitler won Time magazine's man of the year award in 1938 IIRC. This might be after Sudetenland and before Prague when most have seen Hitler as a man of peace. It might look silly retrospectively but back then not much people expected what is going to happen (e.g. Einstein did).

I personally think time should revive that tradition of not looking at the morality of it's editors when selecting a person of the year

I'm pretty sure putin would have won 2014
 
Yes, sure. Nobody is perfect. Probably his biggest flaw was that he did not recognize that Hitler is a psychopath but very few actually did since he was just so astonishingly charismatic. E.g. Hitler won Time magazine's man of the year award in 1938 IIRC. This might be after Sudetenland and before Prague when most have seen Hitler as a man of peace. It might look silly retrospectively but back then not much people expected what is going to happen (e.g. Einstein did).

Hitler being the Man of the Year had little to do with him being seen as a man of peace. Quite the opposite.
 
I actually think he was a very good politician. He did everything he could really. If Hitler had some sense for diplomacy Chamberlain would have easily succeeded i think.
it's possible.

but Hitler was insane and drugged out of his mind. alas.
 
Certainly yes. I'm unsure if he was insane from the beginning or gradually grown. My bet is the latter.
he was under heavy medication starting in the early 1930s. by the time the war ended he was a lump of madness, but he was almost certainly starting to become unhinged by the time Munich ran around.
 
he was under heavy medication starting in the early 1930s. by the time the war ended he was a lump of madness, but he was almost certainly starting to become unhinged by the time Munich ran around.

Hitler's physician, Dr. Theodor Morell, specialty was venereal disease. He had treated Heinrich Hoffmann, who credited Morell for saving his life. Hitler began using Morell as his personal physician in '36 and immediately began treating his early morning tiredness with multivitamin shots (heavily laced with methamphetamine) with an evening sedative (morphine) to allow him to sleep. Amongst other things.

Why a physician who specializes in VD? Where did he pick that up, and when? The story of the Jewish hooker passing on VD comes into play, and suggests a reason why he went after young (YOUNG!) girls thereafter. Maria Reiter was 16. Geli Rabaul was 17. Hoffmann's assistant, Eva Braun, was 17. All of these girls either killed themselves or attempted suicide at least, seeking Hitler's favor.

As the war begins and progresses, Hitler definitely begins to show signs of true mania and Parkinson's disease (almost assuredly accelerated by the constant drug use); and the Brown Eminence fills the void of power with Hitler's blessing. One of the effects of Parkinson's (and Syphillis) is an extremely rigid line of thinking that grows more rigid over time, which is why by the end you have the famous Downfall clip of him just ranting about non-existent armies.

So, imho, the era of Appeasement was the era of his greatest power where he charmed the world into doing his bidding like the evil sorcerer he was, and the beginning of the downward spiral.

And, as you suggest, Munich might be the tipping point.
 
Last edited:
I'd argue he was not evil but a maniac. Stalin was true evil though.

I will argue exactly the opposite.

We are discussing appeasement, and the real question is what was Hitler's true goal and what would it have taken to appease him - short of total world domination under a New World Order of his own making.

Hitler, steeped in the occult from a young age, initiated into Blavatsky's Secret Doctrine by Dietrich Eckhart, reinforced by the linkages to Karl Haushofer and Rudolph Hess, is black evil. The SS, an occult organization built by Jesuit priests, is well documented to have conducted spells and seances throughout its existence. And the sheer fact that when Hitler bounced at Moscow he orders his Prince of Death, Reinhard Heydrich, to shift Germany's governmental focus from a War-First mentality to prioritizing 'Immigration to the East' as the Final Solution to the Jewish question over and above all other concerns - especially taking precedence over military and industrial transport - proves the matter.

The most telling point is that during the last years of the war Speer is producing material in record amounts, but little of it reaches the front, because the Reichsbahn trains are used to meet Eichmann's timetables and whatever is left over is allocated to other uses.

When killing Jews takes priority over military necessity, was word would you use other than evil. Unless, of course, someone wants to make the argument the Final Solution was a positive, or never happened; and that individual will find the conversation very short as they take an extended vacation from this forum.

Stalin is no one's idea of a saint and is an absolute horror of a human being. But I'll take the Gulag Archipelago over the Death Camps any day of the week.
 
Last edited:
@Andre Bolkonsky

Please edit out any references to genocide. It is not allowed on PDX forums. This is a nice thread. Don't risk it please.

My point is that Hitler didn't enjoy the suffering of others which is a definition of evil to me. He did everything out of fanaticism and madness. On the other hand there are multiple records about Stalin enjoying suffering and torment of others.
 
@Andre Bolkonsky

Please edit out any references to genocide. It is not allowed on PDX forums. This is a nice thread. Don't risk it please.

My point is that Hitler didn't enjoy the suffering of others which is a definition of evil to me. He did everything out of fanaticism and madness. On the other hand there are multiple records about Stalin enjoying suffering and torment of others.

As I have spent the majority of my life going down these rabbit holes in an intellectual quest to understand the motivation and policies used, I have had extended conversations with multiple mods about how this topic may and may not be discussed.

To confirm: @Had a dad , @TheLoneGunman

The Final Solution may be discussed in broad and general terms. You can mention technologies used, but don't go into extreme detail or graphic descriptions. Don't go into the camps and discuss the utter brutality or conditions, but you can discuss the path and policies the Nazis used. The names of the individuals involved and their deeds should not be forgotten but live in infamy.

Those who do not remember history are doomed to repeat it.
 
Last edited:
@Andre Bolkonsky

Please edit out any references to genocide. It is not allowed on PDX forums. This is a nice thread. Don't risk it please.

My point is that Hitler didn't enjoy the suffering of others which is a definition of evil to me. He did everything out of fanaticism and madness. On the other hand there are multiple records about Stalin enjoying suffering and torment of others.
Stalin's policies were abhorrent and resulted in the deaths of millions. However, the deaths were a result and not the objective, whereas for the Nazis, death was the objective.
 
Of course this is just big pile of rubbish.

Both killed intentionaly millions of people.