If France and Britain never delcared war on Germany for attacking Poland, what would have been Germa

1) WRONG : a "legitimate " government is a government that is in control of the population;foreign recognition is irrelevant : example :the communist government of China in 1949 was legitimate, although, for domestic reasons, US refused to recognize reality .

2 ) Recognition or not by foreign governments is irrelevant for the status of a government :if a government is in control of the population, it is "legitimate " :US refused to accept reality about the SU until 1933 and did as the ostrich, Mussolini was realistic and accepted the fait accompli and did business with the SU . US have the bad custom to do as a spoiled child and to refuse of accepting reality : it took more than 50 years to accept the fact that the Castro regime was ruling Cuba .

3 ) As all governments are legitimate,the subjective notion of legitimate is meaningless

 

This is not so : The SU was established on december 30 1922 and was very soon recognized by most European countries .

Austria : 1924

Denmark 1924

Finland 1923

France 1924

Germany 1923

Italy 1924

Norway &924

Sweden 1924

UK 1924

Poland 1923

Also by China (1924 ),Iran and Turkey (1923 ) ,Mexico (1924 ),Japan (1923 )

 

This is why I used "Bolshevik government".
The Bolshevik government, led by Lenin, which ruled Russia from November 7, 1917, renamed its country to the Soviet Russian Republic at the beginning of 1918, then again to the Russian Socialist Federative Soviet Republic, and then to the USSR in 1922.
The name changing process didn't mean anything, it was the same group of people, led by the same man.
And that group was denied recognition for several years.

 

Hardly meaningful, considering the Bolsheviks were involved in the Russian Civil War, and several of the countries listed were providing troops and support to the opposing side. With the bulk of Allied troops withdrawn around 1920, Great Britain concluded a trade treaty with the Bolsheviks in 1921, giving the Bolsheviks de facto recognition as the legitimate government of Russia.

Your making a mountain out of a mole hill.

 

De facto recognition (meaning "in practice or actuality, but not officially established") is an entirely different thing from de jure ("official") recognition.
In 1921 the other Russian government - the Provisional Priamurye Government with its own Tsar Nicholas the Younger still existed, and was de facto recognized by some countries too.

 

Soviet Russia wasn't recognized by the US till 1933 for example because the Bolsheviks had nationalized everything. All prior treaties were void. All property or holdings were voided and nationalized as well. This is the main reason. The same was said about France, GB and Belgium etc. This did not mean the revolution was illegal.

The same countries that didn't recognize the government were the same ones who tried to stop it and sided with the "Whites". They were repaid by the Bolsheviks by tearing up all of the old treaties and nationalizing all of their assets.

Different names of groups but the same people and ideology. Bonderites are now in Kiev. Their former leader is praised as a national hero (not recognized by the Eastern part of the country of course). They now walk around holding torch lit vigils, with some wearing NAZI uniforms, arm bands and multiple other emblems or insignia. Poland isn't very fond of the new regime I'm reading...

 

Hardly...Nicholas the Younger, was not named Tsar until early August, 1922...At which time, he was not even living in Russia, having gone into exile in 1919. It existed only because of the Japanese troops "protecting" the area. When the Japanese Army left, the Provisional Priamurye Government quickly collapsed.

 

Your should add to that list...refusing to honor previous Tsarist Russia debts, and negotiating a separate peace with Germany.

That being said, American businesses could have cared less about recognition, and were soon doing very brisk business with the new Soviet Union.
https://www.marxists.org/history/ussr/government/1928/sufds/ch13.htm

Your putting the cart before the horse.

The Bolsheviks by tore up all of the old treaties and nationalized all of their assets, whereupon the same countries that didn't recognize the Soviet government tried to stop it and sided with the "Whites".

 

Actually this is far more simple.

If a revolution/coup succeeds the Government is legitimate.

If it fails, the Government is not legitimate.

 

Back to the roots:

If France and Britain never declared war on Germany for attacking Poland, what would have been Germany's next move? (have you noticed a typo in the tittle of this tread?)

Declaration of war or not, the state of war existed and Hitler would have attacked the West first, exactly like he did and then he would have turned east.That was his plan from the very beginning. Declaration of war changed nothing - a verbal reaction to occupation of Poland has tuned into a passive attrition phony war and Gemany attacked according to the schedule. Hitler wanted to have safe back and flanks before starting the main meal: Russia. So simple is that.

 

Yes it is simple. But Hitler forgot, that the war in the West wasn't won yet.

 

Not sure it as simple as you assert.

Lets start with the Declaration of War (DoW), or lack of it. To a democracy, like Great Britain and France, a DoW is vital to prosecute a major conflict and without it success is highly doubtful. There can be no mass conscription of military age males, no mass mobilization, no budget busting orders for military equipment, no rationing of food and strategic materials for the 'non' war effort, no suspension of civil liberties, no excessive taxation, no courting of a distant democratic ally to help fight a war...not being formally declared, no control over the press and considerable freedom to voice opposition to the war or at least how it is being fought. This is especially problematic for Great Britain in her Dominions. Canada will not send conscripts overseas as it is, Australia and New Zealand see threats in their own backyard, will they allow their slim military assets to be siphoned off to a 'non-war' in Europe?

It is also problematic to say Hitler intended this, or wished that. He tended to say different things to different people depending on his mood and circumstance. He also tended to contradict himself, especially in strategic goals. He loathes the Soviet Union, yet makes an agreement to share Poland when it looks like the West will fight. He wants nothing to do with Scandinavia until Winston start stirring up trouble and then decides to send a ad hoc invasion and eventually declares Norway a 'Zone of Destiny', even though it remains a backwater for the remainder of the war. He never intends to send forces to North Africa and the Med, yet he does and again declares a 'Zone of Destiny' that largely remains a secondary front if not a backwater for both sides. He never intends to fight a 'two front war' yet invades Russia with Britain unbeaten in his rear. He doesn't intend to deal with the US until Europe is secured, yet he declares on them (one of his few DoW's) when he has but a few U-boats to send at them as his only offensive measure.

It is difficult to say Hitler had any real strategic goals other than expanding the military and creating a empire in the East. His goals were so nebulous that he was more a reactor to events than a driver of them. His prewar mobilization is constantly sped up to the point his industry can not keep pace. Political events such as Ruhr, Austria and Munich are also sped up because of a sense that the west will not act. The Nazi-Soviet Pact, Norway, North Africa and the Med, Barbarossa, the US DoW are all major reactions to current events rather than well thought out strategic moves. Each a response to the acts of others, not the act of someone driving the initiative.

He may have intended to do all these things at some point, but he was often moved to act well before he was ready (militarily) to do so.

If there was no DoW from the West in response to a Polish invasion, it is equally likely that Hitler would have turned east in 1940 if he concluded that by not declaring war the Anglo-French either lacked the stomach for war with Germany or secretly hoped Germany would eliminate the Soviet Union for them (or the reverse). This would be as consistent with Hitler's Historical time line decision making as anything.

 

This is true, he wasn't really interested in the West. France and Britain were interested in peace and Hitler knew that.

The war against France and Britain wasn't a war of aggression, the war against Russia was one and the masterminds behind it paid their price later during the Nuremburg Tribunal.

 

Respectfully I think my point is being missed, Hitler had goals, but no firm strategy to achieve those goals. I do think that at some point Hitler would fight a war of aggression in the West if for no other reason than to recover lost territories and to cow the West. For Denmark and the BeNeLux countries 1940 can only be seen as acts of aggression.

 

I think, he had a firm strategy. To achieve some sort of agreement with Britain (Eastern Europe for me, Empire for you) and then go to war with Russia. But Britain knew, that such a Greater Reich would be a constant source of problems and too strong and too big to defeat in the future.

You are right, the wars against Benelux and Denmark were pure acts of aggression against innocent, peaceful countries.

 

Don't force me to repost the CollegeHumor "Grammar Nazis" video.