The Second World War was unnecessary, although probably inevitable

Tomorrow the tanks will roll across Moscow’s Red Square. It is the day of the great parade to mark the 75th anniversary of the ending of the Second World War.

In the West, it’s not that well-known a fact that the Soviet Union lost many more soldiers and civilians in the war than all the rest of the allies put together. Without the alliance of the West with Russia Hitler would undoubtedly have won the war.

Ignorance is a common trait not only in the West but in Russia too. How many Russians today are aware of the sheer quantity of arms, munitions and even fighter planes and bombers shipped through dangerous northern seas by the US and Britain to Russia’s northern ports in order to help Stalin’s army and air force?  

Flawed and ignorant thinking in both Russia and the West today dominates the discourse when the war is discussed and analyzed. The assumption made is that the war could not have been avoided. It was a “good” war.

It is widely believed that Churchill was right to work to topple Chamberlain who believed there was a way to persuade Hitler to avoid war; that the Soviet Union was always on Hitler’s target list and had a reason to persuade Hitler to sign a non-aggression pact; that the Anschluss, the incorporation of Austria into the Third Reich, went against the will of the Austrian people; that the Poles were the innocent party in the war, despite refusing to be flexible over a deal to make a compromise over Gdansk, a piece of former German territory ruled by Poland, even though the Polish government had supported Germany’s take-over of Czechoslovakia; that Chamberlain’s decision to throw down the gauntlet to Hitler once the German attack on Poland began on September 1st 1939 was absolutely right.

Above all was the conviction that from the beginning Hitler was intent on a European-wide war.

None of these are true.

This isn’t just my thinking. Basil Liddell Hart who was widely considered in Britain as its foremost military strategist and was knighted by the king to mark his service to military thinking was an exponent of the above.

So was A. J. P. Taylor, the Oxford don who was Britain’s and America’s most well-read historian and author of the intimately researched “Origins of the Second World War”– which no politician or journalist practicing today has in all likelihood read.

They are ignored, not because their scholarship has been proved wrong, but because public opinion could never accept such an interpretation.

Too much blood was spilt by the allies for such idiosyncratic views to be acceptable. If these two brilliant men had lived in the Soviet Union in Stalin’s time undoubtedly they would have been tried and executed.

Hitler had a singular initial ambition – to recover the territory that had been taken from Germany after World War 1 – but definitely not by war, as he wrote in a directive in March, 1939.

Liddell Hart, who foresaw the German use of the Blitzkrieg, writes: “It is not true that Western statesmen were as unaware of Hitler’s convictions as they later pretended”. Such was Liddell Hart’s status, he had trusted access to the highest level of thinking and planning in the British government, as his big books make clear.

He went on to write: “In 1937-38 many of them were frankly realistic in private discussion, though not on public platforms, and many arguments were set forth in British governing circles for allowing Germany to expand eastwards, and thus divert danger from the West.

They showed much sympathy with Hitler’s desire for Lebensraum and let him know it”. (Lebensraum is the territory that Germany believed was necessary for its development. It was a concept of settler colonialism which was widely held in Germany from the 1890s onwards.)

Lord Halifax, a cabinet member and soon to become foreign secretary, gave Hitler in a private meeting the impression that Britain would allow him a free hand in Eastern Europe to right the wrongs of the Versailles Treaty and restore German-speaking minorities to the homeland.

Shortly after the British ambassador to Germany reiterated to Hitler the same line. After all the British and French governments had accepted his march into Austria.

“At first”, wrote Liddell Hart, “Hitler did not think of moving against Poland – even though she possessed the largest stretch of territory carved out of Germany after World War 1”. He felt he owed Warsaw one because Poland had ignored the Allies’ concerns and exploited the chance to seize a slice of Czech territory, thus according Hitler’s seizure of Sudetenland, the German-populated region of Czechoslovakia, some legitimacy.

All that Hitler wanted from Poland was that she hand back the German populated port of Danzig, awarded her in the Treaty of Versailles at the end of the First World War. Germany’s incorporation of Danzig was a territorial claim that every government of the Weimar Republic had put on its agenda.

But the government in Poland was obstinate, a national trait that still exists, as has been clear in the last few years with its fraught and difficult relationship with the European Union to which it belongs. The Poles had an inflated sense of their own strength and bargaining power, and still do. They regarded themselves as one of the Great Powers.

Hitler believed that Warsaw would eventually come round.  As late as March 25th, 1939, Hitler told his Army Commander in Chief that he “did not wish to solve the Danzig problem by the use of force.” On March 10th Chamberlain privately expressed the view that the prospects for peace were better than ever.

But no effort was made to use the time to think through a compromise, for example – this is my belated suggestion – allowing Danzig city, with its population 90% German, self-government whilst allowing the rest of the territory of Danzig with its 200 towns and villages to remain under League of Nations protection, albeit with Poland still having rights over communications, railways and port facilities and to continue the customs union, and to which Germany could have been allocated a 50% part ownership. 

The former German citizenship of most of the population should have been returned

Then Chamberlain did a somersault. On March 29th he sent Poland an offer to support her against “any action which threatened Polish independence, and which the Polish Government accordingly considered it vital to resist.” This was grist to the mill to Warsaw’s hard-liners. Poland, in effect, was given a carte-blanche to set British policy towards Gdansk, the Polish corridor and Poland itself. Poland refused to negotiate the slightest of compromises with Hitler.

Chamberlain’s startling change of mind was brought about by events in Czechoslovakia. Earlier in autumn 1938, when the Munich agreement was made, he had pledged to guarantee Czechoslovakia against aggression.

But in March 1939 he told the House of Commons that he considered Slovakia’s breakaway had annulled the guarantee (Ironically the Poles had decided to support the breakaway). It was known that privately Chamberlain thought that Hitler had a good case about Czechoslovakia and its claim to the German-speaking province of Sudetenland.

When Hitler’s troops marched into Prague it was a total surprise to almost everyone that Chamberlain chose to make clear that Britain would block any further moves by Hitler. All over the world well-informed people were amazed. Poland and Danzig came into focus.

Liddell Hart writes:  “It is impossible to know what was the predominant influence on Chamberlain’s impulse – the pressure of public indignation which was high, or his own indignation, or his anger at having been fooled by Hitler at Munich, or his humiliation at having been made to look like a fool in the eyes of his own people.”

On September 1st 1939 the German armies invaded Poland. Two days later the British government declared war supposedly to aid Poland to hang on uncompromisingly to Gdansk – which few British, French or Americans had ever heard off a few months earlier.

Six hours later the French government decided to follow the British lead. The Second World War was launched.

Polish intransigence was the root cause. Chamberlain’s ineffective, volatile, leadership and a roused British opinion fanned by Churchill was the gunpowder.

Hitler, initially unenthusiastic about fighting Poland but thwarted over his demands for Gdansk, pulled the trigger.

Later Hitler attacked the Soviet Union, and that was his undoing. Hitler lost the war.

On June 24, Russian troops march in parade in front of the Kremlin to celebrate its end.

If you think this article was useful, reward TFF with a dollar or two

[paypal-donation]

Foreign affairs columnist, film-maker and author

Share

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Related Posts

The MIMAC – Military-Industrial-Media-Academic Complex – drives the world’s rampant militarism and wars without end. Here is a short reflection of how it works against all interests of humanity. #5 deals with why there is no real enemy or threat images/analysis. It’s all ex-post constructions. And, btw, theTFF Peace Pulse is now on Rumble.
Jan Oberg, TFF director April 28, 2026 In this third TFF Peace Pulse, I make the important distinction between the violence and the conflict that violence is a symptom of. If you want peace, focus on the underlying conflict because that is the key to resolution, peacemaking, and a better future for the parties. The West is obsessed with violence, just look around you – and 90+ per cent of the public debate is about military issues and other violence – totally wasted for peace. These Peace Pulses will only be published here a few times. You will also not find them on YouTube and Vimeo because both platforms have blocked TFF and me; you know, peace is dangerous these days. Most TFF’s videos since 2007 are now on Rumble.
In contrast to most, we’ll bring alternatives, solutions, hope and strategies for a better future. Times are dangerous, yes, but that only intensifies the need for constructive thinking and action! Jan Oberg, TFF director April 13, 2026 The new TFF Peace Pulse uses video messages in a new way: Max 3-5-minute-long comments, ideas or perhaps mini-lectures, all about peace – positive peace. We launch them today on April 13, 2026 with a carefully crafted visual aesthetic fitting the content. We hope to publish them regularly from now on. We launch Peace Pulse (PP) – for a number of reasons. The world is in chaos, and there are countless reasons to feel concerned, frustrated, even angry. The atmosphere is saturated with doom and gloom, with negative energy and rear‑mirror thinking, while vision, imagination, alternatives, strategies and genuine future‑mindedness remain in short supply. And without them, we simply can’t save the world. Looking at problems from a hundred angles will...

Recent Articles

Jan Oberg May 15, 2026 Go to this Fox News page and scroll the whole way down: President Donald Trump tells the world that his meeting with President Xi Jinping yielded a lot of very concrete political and economic results – of course, only where the Chinese side, according to him, agreed with him. He does not mention the Taiwan issue, but Secretary of State, Marco Rubio, says that it did not feature prominently in their talks and that the US policy on Taiwan has not changed. Then go to China Daily – or Global Times – and you will see that for the Chinese it is framework, principles, structure of cooperation etc. that matters – all embedded in the overall idea of “constructive bilateral relationship of strategic stability.” Nowhere is any concrete agreement or deal – all that Trump refers to – mentioned. At the general level, this gives you insights into the very different social...
Lena Petrova of “World Affairs In Context” with more than half a million subscribers on YouTube wanted to explore what a peace researcher like me has to say about, among other things, the First and the Second Cold War and why eethics has disappeared from politics. I am particularly happy about this conversation that also yielded an amazing number of very appreciative comments on YouTube. No doubt, people are longing for alternatives, including peace perspectives.
The MIMAC – Military-Industrial-Media-Academic Complex – drives the world’s rampant militarism and wars without end. Here is a short reflection of how it works against all interests of humanity. #5 deals with why there is no real enemy or threat images/analysis. It’s all ex-post constructions. And, btw, theTFF Peace Pulse is now on Rumble.

TFF on Substack

Discover more from TFF Transnational Foundation & Jan Oberg.

Most Popular

Jan Oberg May 15, 2026 Go to this Fox News page and scroll the whole way down: President Donald Trump tells the world that his meeting with President Xi Jinping yielded a lot of very concrete political and economic results – of course, only where the Chinese side, according to him, agreed with him. He does not mention the Taiwan issue, but Secretary of State, Marco Rubio, says that it did not feature prominently in their talks and that the US policy on Taiwan has not changed. Then go to China Daily – or Global Times – and you will see that for the Chinese it is framework, principles, structure of cooperation etc. that matters – all embedded in the overall idea of “constructive bilateral relationship of strategic stability.” Nowhere is any concrete agreement or deal – all that Trump refers to – mentioned. At the general level, this gives you insights into the very different social...
Lena Petrova of “World Affairs In Context” with more than half a million subscribers on YouTube wanted to explore what a peace researcher like me has to say about, among other things, the First and the Second Cold War and why eethics has disappeared from politics. I am particularly happy about this conversation that also yielded an amazing number of very appreciative comments on YouTube. No doubt, people are longing for alternatives, including peace perspectives.
The MIMAC – Military-Industrial-Media-Academic Complex – drives the world’s rampant militarism and wars without end. Here is a short reflection of how it works against all interests of humanity. #5 deals with why there is no real enemy or threat images/analysis. It’s all ex-post constructions. And, btw, theTFF Peace Pulse is now on Rumble.
Read More
Screenshot-2026-05-15-103534
Jan Oberg May 15, 2026 Go to this Fox News page and scroll the whole way down: President Donald Trump tells the world that his meeting with President Xi Jinping yielded a lot of very concrete political and economic results – of course, only where the Chinese side, according to him, agreed with him. He does not mention the Taiwan issue, but Secretary of State, Marco Rubio, says that it did not feature prominently in their talks and that the US policy on Taiwan has not changed. Then go to China Daily – or Global Times – and you will see that for the Chinese it is framework, principles, structure of cooperation etc. that matters – all embedded in the overall idea of “constructive bilateral relationship of strategic stability.” Nowhere is any concrete agreement or deal – all that Trump refers to – mentioned. At the general level, this gives you insights into the very different social...
Screenshot-2026-05-12-104023
Lena Petrova of “World Affairs In Context” with more than half a million subscribers on YouTube wanted to explore what a peace researcher like me has to say about, among other things, the First and the Second Cold War and why eethics has disappeared from politics. I am particularly happy about this conversation that also yielded an amazing number of very appreciative comments on YouTube. No doubt, people are longing for alternatives, including peace perspectives.
Screenshot-2026-04-13-154551 (2)
The MIMAC – Military-Industrial-Media-Academic Complex – drives the world’s rampant militarism and wars without end. Here is a short reflection of how it works against all interests of humanity. #5 deals with why there is no real enemy or threat images/analysis. It’s all ex-post constructions. And, btw, theTFF Peace Pulse is now on Rumble.
Screenshot-2026-04-13-154551 (1)
Jan Oberg, TFF director April 28, 2026 In this third TFF Peace Pulse, I make the important distinction between the violence and the conflict that violence is a symptom of. If you want peace, focus on the underlying conflict because that is the key to resolution, peacemaking, and a better future for the parties. The West is obsessed with violence, just look around you – and 90+ per cent of the public debate is about military issues and other violence – totally wasted for peace. These Peace Pulses will only be published here a few times. You will also not find them on YouTube and Vimeo because both platforms have blocked TFF and me; you know, peace is dangerous these days. Most TFF’s videos since 2007 are now on Rumble.
Screenshot-2026-04-13-154551
In contrast to most, we’ll bring alternatives, solutions, hope and strategies for a better future. Times are dangerous, yes, but that only intensifies the need for constructive thinking and action! Jan Oberg, TFF director April 13, 2026 The new TFF Peace Pulse uses video messages in a new way: Max 3-5-minute-long comments, ideas or perhaps mini-lectures, all about peace – positive peace. We launch them today on April 13, 2026 with a carefully crafted visual aesthetic fitting the content. We hope to publish them regularly from now on. We launch Peace Pulse (PP) – for a number of reasons. The world is in chaos, and there are countless reasons to feel concerned, frustrated, even angry. The atmosphere is saturated with doom and gloom, with negative energy and rear‑mirror thinking, while vision, imagination, alternatives, strategies and genuine future‑mindedness remain in short supply. And without them, we simply can’t save the world. Looking at problems from a hundred angles will...
IMG_5165 (1)
PART II — Publishing Peace in a System That Prioritises Militarism Jan Oberg, TFF director April 10, 2026 How TFF Maintains a Daily Voice in a Digital World Built for Noise This article is part of the series “TFF at 40″ and it invites you to learn about Four Decades of Publishing Peace. It takes a look at how a small, people‑financed peace foundation has communicated across four generations of technology — from wax stencils and fax machines to mass email and Substack — and why TFF continues to publish every single day in a system that rewards noise, conflict, and militarism. ◆ What it means to publish peace every single day in a digital system built for 24/7 news and other noise, confrontation, and militarism. How TFF’s independence, continuity, and global readership defy algorithms, donor cycles, and Western media censorhip — and why the Majority World keeps listening. When the...