Hi Nadine Carroll; Re: "First of all, Germany post WWI was no industrial giant in anybody's eyes ..."
Maybe you're confusing the economic devastation of WW2 with that of WW1. Germany was in good condition after WW1, except for insufficient food. They were still the giant of Europe. Here's some figures:
nber.org
Re: "As I told you, if the Third Reich had fallen in 1936, few would have regarded it as a serious threat."
German production did not expand to any great degree between 1936 and 1945. There was a recovery from the depression, sure, but that was present throughout the developed world. Here's the figures for German pig iron production from 1914 to 1938:
nber.org
The above series will show that there was no significant increase in pig iron production in the years between 1936 and the beginning of the war. What there was was a redirection of that production towards wartime needs. But the same could be said of every other developed country on the planet, especially the US. Surely you're not arguing that Germany was a "sleeping giant", who could therefore be easily defeated in a lighting attack, LOL.
Now that I think of it, your persuasion that Iraq could easily be defeated matches your presumption that Germany could have as well. And look at the Israelis. 50 years have gone by and they still haven't defeated the Palestinians.
No, the defeat of large nations is a difficult, bloody and time consuming task. If Berlin had been occupied by British forces in 1936, they would have been confronted with the same guerilla tactics that the Germans later had to deal with when they invaded other countries in WW2. Eventually the British would have been forced to pull out.
All this would have been far less bloody than WW2, but it would have left Germany in the same position as the position that Chamberlain left it, except that the further bloodshed would have likely further radicalized the German people. What would have happened then? That would involve the use of a crystal ball that we do not have access to. But every example of a large nation that was beaten and then occupied by a foreign foe as a result of a short and unbloody war (like you claim that WW2 in 1936 would have been) is that a long and bloody guerilla war arises. Every single example. Would the British have had the stoicism to keep up the fight against guerilla tactics? Of course not, any more than they had the guts (or more accurately, the bloody mindedness) to keep the rest of their empire after WW2 against native uprisings.
Your argument for a short and easy WW2 fails for the same reason that the US occupation of Iraq is failing. The allied occupation of Germany in 1945 was peaceful only because it had been preceded by a long and bloody war.
-- Carl |
