New Project: Comprehensive List of World Civilizations

innonimatu said:

Excuse me? Now who's wanting other countries to fight their wars? Poland and Czechoslovakia didn't had to depend on the UK and France. They could have fought their own wars with Germany, also before Germany became "too powerful". The same thing you would demand of the UK. But they were too busy playing buddies with the nazis.

Click to expand...

Care to expand on this more? Especially on the bolded part?

Excuse me? Now who's wanting other countries to fight their wars?

Click to expand...

You ask who? Well - of course Great Britain wanted Poland to fight Great Britain's war for preserving their Colonial Empire from the threat of growing German power which could threaten the Great Britain's supposed (we can argue if it was still a fact in 1938) world dominance.

Not otherwise.

As you noticed - Poland was "playing buddies" with Germany (well, in Poland that was called "policy of balance between Germany and Russia" - which was consistently carried out by Polish Foreign Affairs Minister Joseph Beck - rather than "playing buddies" with either Germany or Russia).

Poland had non-aggression pacts both with Nazi Germany and with Soviet Russia - which doesn't mean it was "playing buddies" with either.

It turned out how good "buddies" Poland was with Germany when Poland firmly rejected Germany's offer of joining the Anti-Comintern Pact...

All the friendly gestures before that on the part of Poland were just diplomatic courtesy and part of that policy mentioned above.

which it was, consistently, for almost the entirety of Nazi rule in Germany up to the outbreak of WWII

Click to expand...

Not up to the outbreak of WW2.

The Polish-German relations terribly worsened already at the beginning of 1939 and especially since March 1939.

"freaking Polish dictatorship buddying up with the Nazis caused its own damn problems".

Click to expand...

Absolutely no. It was Great Britain & France which allowed Germany to regain its former military power. British pro-German attitude and appeasement made it impossible to continue to extort from Germany observing provisions of the Versailles Treaty - all of which Germany broke in Britain's own backyard.

If any own problems Polish Rydz-Smigly dictatorship caused - it caused them by opposing Germany since early 1939 onwards.

Czech leadership was more realistic in one thing - that they decided to succumb to Germany without trying to resist. But on the other hand Czechs had no British and French guarantees - while Poles had them and thus deluded themselves with empty promises of help from France and Britain.

By surrendering to Germany without any resistance Czechs avoided much of the destructions and civilian casualties that Poland suffered.

Lord Baal said:

Poland was. I don't recall Czechoslovakia ever "playing buddies" with the Nazis. Unless you're referring to Munich, which was hardly Czechoslovakia's fault.

Click to expand...

Very well, guilty as charged of sloppy writing. I meant Poland only, which even tried to seize part of Czechoslovakia.

Though, to be honest, the Hungarians, Romanians, Bulgarians, etc also helped make central/eastern Europe a true viper's nest. Czechoslovakia actually stands out as the exception in an area ripe for new nationalist-driven wars. But it too was a country made up of at least two '"nations", so I don't know just how stable it was between the wars given the political climate of that era.

I hope you're not (solely) blaming those countries for making Eastern Europe into a "viper's nest." Kind of difficult to see how any civility could exist in that region after the Versailles powers completely screwed them over.

Czechoslovakia actually stands out as the exception in an area ripe for new nationalist-driven wars.

Click to expand...

Almost an innocent Angelgoodvakia, right?

Well, almost - because Czechoslovakia invaded Poland in 1919:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish–Czechoslovak_War

And persecuted Polish minority members in the annexed region (as the result of that 1919 invasion):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish_minority_in_the_Czech_Republic#In_Czechoslovakia_.281920-1938.29

And Axis Slovakia (former part of Czechoslovakia) later took part in the invasion of Poland in 1939.

But it too was a country made up of at least two '"nations", so I don't know just how stable it was between the wars given the political climate of that era.

Click to expand...

I can see much more than two nations in pre-war Czechoslovakia (you mean Czechs and Slovaks surely).

Apart from Czechs and Slovaks (who didn't like each other very much - events of 1938 - 1939 show this) there were also numerous minorities - Poles in the north (in areas invaded and annexed in 1919), Germans in the west, Hungarians & Ukrainians in the south-east (Carpatho-Ukraine).

As well as numerous Jews spread all over the country - but especially in eastern regions (in Carpatho-Ukraine over 10%):

Here population censuses for Carpatho-Ruthenia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carpathian_Ruthenia#Ethnonational_censuses_in_Carpathian_Ruthenia

And here population censuses for Zaolzie:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zaolzie#Census_data

Kind of difficult to see how any civility could exist in that region after the Versailles powers completely screwed them over.

Click to expand...

Yes. And the Trianon powers too.

Paradox of Versailles and Trianon was that noone was really satisfied by provisions of those treaties.

Of course some were only dissatisifed or not really satisfied, while some others (like Germany & Hungary) were mad.

I meant Poland only, which even tried to seize part of Czechoslovakia.

Click to expand...

Oh not only tried - Poland did size it. Of course without bloodshed, Czechoslovakian authorities agreed on that disadvantageous trade of territory. But what Poland seized was the same territory which had been invaded by Czechoslovakia in 1919 (see the "Polish-Czechoslovak war of 1919" article above).

Sorry - by Angelgoodvakia, not by Czechoslovakia.

innonimatu said:

Czechoslovakia actually stands out as the exception in an area ripe for new nationalist-driven wars. But it too was a country made up of at least two '"nations", so I don't know just how stable it was between the wars given the political climate of that era.

Click to expand...

Depends on which part of interbellum you're talking about.

After WWI - unstable. Unrest in German minority and wars with neighbouring countries.

In the twenties - stable

Thirties - unstable. Foundation of Sudetendeutsche Partei and rising nationalism in Slovakia.

Are you interested in details?

You were alone, for God's sake, because before that you had duped most of your allies or potential allies (Czechoslovakia). And appeasing Hitler for 5+ years (1933-1938) was also not exactly a good idea - as well as being so pro-German all the way from 1919 to 1938 to maintain the "balance of power".

Click to expand...

Appeasement was definitely a good idea at the time, with the information that the British had. We know now that the German war machine was all bark and very little bite until about 1938, but to an outside observer it looked very much ready for war for all of that time - meanwhile, the British Army was tiny in 1933, and grossly underprepared for war. You have to take into account also that every voting man and woman in the UK had been alive at the time of the most traumatic and destructive war in history, and by God they were not about to go through that again if there was any chance at all of avoiding it. 'The most frought peace is better than the most just war' was very much the watchword of the day.

Algeroth said:

Depends on which part of interbellum you're talking about.

After WWI - unstable. Unrest in German minority and wars with neighbouring countries.

In the twenties - stable

Thirties - unstable. Foundation of Sudetendeutsche Partei and rising nationalism in Slovakia.

Are you interested in details?

Click to expand...

Sure! I'm not doubting you, I really know little about that area and would like to hear the details. Also we're already way OT on this thread, it's not going to make it worse.

Flying Pig said:

Appeasement was definitely a good idea at the time, with the information that the British had. We know now that the German war machine was all bark and very little bite until about 1938, but to an outside observer it looked very much ready for war for all of that time - meanwhile, the British Army was tiny in 1933, and grossly underprepared for war. You have to take into account also that every voting man and woman in the UK had been alive at the time of the most traumatic and destructive war in history, and by God they were not about to go through that again if there was any chance at all of avoiding it. 'The most frought peace is better than the most just war' was very much the watchword of the day.

Click to expand...

The political dimension, i.e. that nobody in France or the U.K. wanted another war, is very true. However, the military dimension, i.e. that the British and French were appeasing the Axis in order to rearm before the inevitable war, less so. That has been debunked many times on this board already. Giving free Czech industry, weapons and fortifications to Hitler was the absolute worst decision they could've made; it's very difficult for me to see how the Axis would have held out if the French and British advanced into the Rhineland while the Wehrmacht was getting bogged down in the Sudetenland. Chamberlain's appeasement at Munich wasn't some calculated gamble to out-produce Germany before war broke out, it was a dumb decision to try and avoid war altogether because he was overly trusting of Hitler.

Oh, the Sudentenland business was in many ways simply a bad judgement call: Chamberlain knew that Hitler was a nationalist and thought that once he'd established his German nation-state he'd go away. He thought that no German leader could really want another war for the sake of 'power and glory'; that he must have some less insane motive, and that giving him Czechoslovakia would mean he had got what he wanted. However, the overall policy of appeasement from 1933 until then was, in part, a recognition that the British were not ready for a war at that time.

Flying Pig said:

Oh, the Sudentenland business was in many ways simply a bad judgement call: Chamberlain knew that Hitler was a nationalist and thought that once he'd established his German nation-state he'd go away. He thought that no German leader could really want another war for the sake of 'power and glory'; that he must have some less insane motive, and that giving him Czechoslovakia would mean he had got what he wanted.

Click to expand...

Yes, I also think that Chamberlain gets too much flak over that bad judgement. The sheer madness of Germany starting another world war probably made the idea that they wouldn't be content with the sudetenland very unlikely. Or at least I can see how the people at Munich fervently wished to believe that. The UK really, really didn't want to fight another world war. The first one had nearly done the empire in, and they knew very well that a second one would only weaken them further vis-a-vis the US and Japan, their main strategic competitors. That's the thing: Germany was not an immediate direct threat to the British Empire, it was the expense of another war against Germany that was the threat!

The british colonies were already proving too expensive to keep militarily occupied. Occupying the Rhineland preemptively, even if the germans failed to put up a fight against that invasion, would require many, many soldiers permanently stationed there, a financial nightmare for the UK. And remember, attempts to make the germans pay for an occupation had already been tried and abandoned right after WW1.

Traitorfish said:

Please define the terms "backwards", "tribe" and "civilisation".

Click to expand...

You're going to make an excellent robot one day.

"Backwards" - less technologically advanced and involving less complicated (advanced) political and social structures compared to sth.

"Tribe" - a local community consisting of several smaller territorial communities (settlements), a form of pre-state organization of societies.

"Civilization" - a territorial community of people involving bureaucracy (no bureaucracy - no civilization).

The last definition is a definition with a pinch of salt.

Domen said:

"Backwards" - less technologically advanced and involving less complicated (advanced) political and social structures compared to sth.

Click to expand...

So basically, societies that don't structure themselves according to Tannistry are "Backwards"

Complicated doesn't entail good.

Domen said:

"Backwards" - less technologically advanced and involving less complicated (advanced) political and social structures compared to sth.

Click to expand...

What is "advancement", and why is it inferred from complexity?

"Tribe" - a local community consisting of several smaller territorial communities (settlements), a form of pre-state organization of societies.

Click to expand...

What is a state, and why is its absence necessary in identifying a given community as "tribal"?

"Civilization" - a territorial community of people involving bureaucracy (no bureaucracy - no civilization).

Click to expand...

What does "involving bureaucracy" mean in practice? On the one hand, we could say that the Lakota Nations c.1850 "civilised" because they were "involved" with the beauraucracy of the United States government; on the other, we could say that the Irish c.1400 "uncivilised" because the "involvement" of the majority of the population with beauraucracy was passing and occassional. It's not clear.

Traitorfish said:

What is a state, and why is its absence necessary in identifying a given community as "tribal"?

Click to expand...

Actually, his definition is more complicated then that. A tribe is a "pre-state" structure. So again, the Lakota circa 1850 were not a tribe because they were a "post-state" structure.

A tribe is synonymous with 'clan' really; it's just an extended family that has some form of cultural (and often political) autonomy. There were tribes in Ancient Rome; indeed Roman names were always stamped with a tribal identifier (Gaius Julius Caesar, Marcus Tullius Cicero, Gaius Cornelius Tacitus and so on)

Clans as extended families didn't really exist in practice.

Very extended families, bear in mind. Two members of a Scottish clan can marry and have children without any legal or biological problems.