[pfannkuchen]

> where one side intends to conquer a continent or the world

I believe this view indicates you may have drunk a bit too much of the kool aid. Germany had zero ability to hold all of Europe longer term, let alone the entire world. This is a comic book tier view. Any end to the war would have had concessions and land transfers but there is no precedent to suggest that even France would have remained under Germany longer term if the Germans had won. Western Poland and bits of other nations, sure, but that is hardly an entire continent or world. The notion that they were a serious threat to occupy the US is hilarious and goes to show how effective the fear mongering propaganda was and continues to be to this day.

> The Allies did not initiate war and did not want war

England and France declared war on Germany, not the other way around. Arguably the whole thing could have been avoided if England and France hadn’t backed Poland, which would have likely caused Poland to negotiate on the original land bridge problem rather than dig their heels in. It’s eerily parallel to the situation with Ukraine today, in fact.

[wewtyflakes]

> Western Poland and bits of other nations, sure

You say that as if it is meaningless. How about just not invading your neighbors?

[pfannkuchen]

“The entire world” down to “half of Poland” may be the theoretically largest goalpost move possible (on Earth, anyway).

[Aeolun]

That’s only if things actually stop at half of Poland, which is hard to imagine with a facist state. You kinda need (plausible) external enemies to keep your power.

It also just sets a bad precedent to let the bullies have their way. Though I’ll admit that it’s questionable whether it was worth it in hindsight, we have only one possible branch of history to compare.

[wewtyflakes]

How about "don't invade your neighbors" to "half of Poland" itself being an absurd goalpost move? The default is to _not_ invade.

[pfannkuchen]

The topic of discussion isn’t whether to invade! It’s whether there was a realistic threat of Germany invading either all of Europe or the entire world, and separately whether the allies were in fact practicing what they preached. That is what I was replying to in the GP, which I explicitly quoted! The goalpost move was the topic being changed from world invasion to Poland invasion.

[wewtyflakes]

Seemed like it was a realistic threat considering Germany did exactly that; invade all of Europe.

[pfannkuchen]

Oh that’s fair, in my last comment I said “invade” which was careless word choice. What GP said and what I was reacting to was “conquer”, as in invade and then continue to occupy after the war concludes.

The France and Britain invasions were pretty straightforwardly defensive actions by Germany. They both allied with Poland and when Poland was invaded (an aggressive act by Germany) they declared war on Germany. What evidence is there to suggest that Germany would still have invaded France if France and Britain had simply abandoned Poland? Note that I’m not asserting that they “should have” abandoned Poland, just that the “we’ve got to stop them before they conquer the whole world” is almost always a bogeyman.

[vlozko]

> It’s eerily parallel to the situation with Ukraine today, in fact.

I'm sorry, but this is not a realistic view of what transpired. Russia was and continues to be an opportunistic colonialist. They keep moving territory markers overnight in Georgia. Crimea/Donbass didn't happen because of some breakdown in some peace treaty. The last minute deal offered and wasn't accepted right before the 2022 invasion that some blame Ukraine on was awful in every possible way. It would have neutered Ukraine militarily and required a puppet government subservient to Russia be installed.

[robbiep]

Are you advocating for a view of history that paints Germany as a victim?

[pfannkuchen]

Definitely not. Just one that depicts actual humans and not comic book villains.