Why were the Countries of Europe so Helpless and Did Nothing to Resist Nazi Germany?

In My Humble Opinion
1

I am reading ‘the rise and fall of the third reich’. I got the impression Hitler talked and bluffed his way to most of Europe. This question has two parts.

  1. Why does it seem like all the other countries have leaders who almost certainly had mental health issues (depression, anxiety) that caused them to basically roll over and do nothing?

  2. How did Hitler figure this out so fast, like that the French would not send any troops etc, he is taking a lot of ‘risks’ but it seems he figured something out about these losers?

2

World War One had been very destructive, had killed millions of people, and toppled a number of established regimes. Most national leaders wanted to avoid another war like that. And they assumed other national leaders felt the same way. So they figured they could all work together to negotiate their differences with the common goal of not allowing those differences to lead to another war.

But Hitler and Mussolini did not share that desire to avoid war. They were willing to fight another war and in some circumstances they were eager to do so. So they were not negotiating with the other powers on the same page.

And it’s worth remembering that the other leaders were right and Hitler and Mussolini were wrong. The next war turned out to be at least as bad as the leaders had feared it would be. And both Hitler and Mussolini lost power and were killed as a result of going war.

3

It should also be mentioned that from a strictly military strategy perspective, the old leaders were also preparing to fight the next war in the same way they fought WWI. The classic example being the Maginot Line separating France from Germany. Basically the same sort of set-piece static defensive warfare they had previously practiced. Meanwhile, the Germans were perfecting the rapid “blitzkrieg” style of combined-arms warfare integrating fast-moving units of armor, mechanized infantry and mobile artillery supported by aircraft.

When war actually started, the military leaders in Poland, France, Belgium and so on were working on timelines of days and weeks while the Germans were working in hours and days.

4

This is the primary reason. Also, not just leaders but also civilian populations who had all lost family, friends, seen their countries ravaged and now wanted to see their nation’s depleted coffers directed towards rebuilding and domestic priorities, not towards building another wartime military. All across Europe, nations were struggling with economic issues (the Great Depression was a global event), unemployment, labor strikes and enormous national debts and no one – aside from Germany, as it turned out – was anxious to get into another major military conflict.

5

One reason is that Germans weren’t the only ones who thought the Treaty of Versailles was too harsh. So as it looked more likely that Nazi foreign policy was a threat to peace in Europe, other powers tended to negotiate from the perspective that a country as large and powerful as Germany deserved to have a decent military and colonial possessions. This led some to believe there was a way to compromise with Germany (by giving them a colony in Africa, for example) and avoid fighting another war as terrible as the one that concluded 20 years previously.

6

The Germans were also not the only people who had a dislike, hatred or suspicion of Jews. Hitler vocalized what others thought and capitalized on others’ fears and dislikes. Not all Germans were anti-Semitic, and not all Europeans were Jewish sympathizers. I would suspect that, at least at first, many non-Germanic people thought that the Jews were getting some comeuppance and kept quiet about what was happening to them. The escalation by Hitler in the persecution of Jews was gradual. Dachau, which was created in 1933, initially housed political prisoners. It didn’t really become a death camp for Jews and others until 1938. Between 1933 and 1938, there was a long list of new laws that targeted Jewish people and that became more and more draconian as time went on.

7

Hitler didn’t figure out diddly. He was surprised when especially France didn’t react to the reoccupation of the Rhineland. He was really surprised when England and France made good on their threats of war on a German invasion of Poland.
Germany had been preparing for war for years. Most European nations were working hard to avoid one.
Then, in the beginning of the war in the west, Germany had better strategy and tactics. As often happens, their opponents adapted, improved and surpassed them.

8

This is a common myth. The Treaty of Versailles wasn’t too harsh. It was actually a pretty fair treaty. The terms of Versailles were not as harsh as the terms of the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk, which Germany had negotiated with Russia a year earlier or the terms of the Treaty of Frankfurt, which Germany had negotiated with France in 1871. It wasn’t as harsh as the Treaty of Saint-Germain, which Austria signed; the Treaty of Trianon, which Hungary signed; the Treaty of Neuilly, which Bulgaria signed; or the Treaty of Sevres, which Turkey signed. Nor was it as harsh as the terms Germany would accept in 1945.

So why do people think Versailles was such a harsh treaty? Because the Germans complained about it a lot. And if you keep saying the same thing over and over again, some people are going to start believing you, regardless of what the facts are.

9

There are a couple of new books out about the Munich pact of 1938 which is widely seen as the epitome of appeasement and a major spur towards the outbreak of WWII. This review notes two significant factors behind appeasement: one (and most important) the fervent desire of the Allies to avoid another costly war, and the other being a significant undercurrent of anti-Semitism in Britain.

“I will not have another war,” King George V declared categorically. “I will not.” Every time Germany or Mussolini’s Italy upped the ante — becoming ever more demanding and brazen — the British had to ask themselves whether the latest transgression was serious enough to merit a “preventive war.”

Another review of this book notes that revisionist historians have tried to sugar-coat European appeasement of Hitler, suggesting that there wasn’t another feasible path to take. Bouverie apparently doesn’t buy this line.

I fully endorse this appraisal.

A lot has been said and written about how mean the Allies were to Germany after WWI - but when you consider the harshness of other treaties Germany compelled vanquished nations to accept and the extreme damage caused in France and elsewhere by the Kaiser’s armies, the Versailles Treaty wasn’t especially onerous.

10

I think few Americans today have any real understanding of what the world seemed like in the 1930s in Europe.

The Great War was the worst thing to happen there since the Great Plagues. An entire generation of young men was killed or suffered physical or emotional damage that stayed with them for life. The areas in which the actual fighting took place were essentially stripped down to bare earth. Millions of civilians suffered from starvation, and millions more died in the Influenza epidemic of 1918-1919.

They needed everything and for the most part got very little. The Russian Empire crumbled. The Austro-Hungarian Empire crumbled. The Ottoman Empire crumbled. The Balkans balkanized. Governments floundered. Hyperinflation hit Germany and other countries. Then just when things started looking better, a world-wide Depression set in. Even in America, many people thought that capitalism had failed as an ideology.

In America, a leftist government took over. In most of Europe, right-wing forces did. Large percentages of the elites were traditionalist conservatives. They believed in monarchies, in the church, in austerity, and their place in society. Workers had generally been brutalized for generations and so took to communist, socialist, and other leftist movements to try to force power for themselves. The right turned to various shades of fascism in retaliation. This was common throughout western Europe, in Britain, France, Spain, Italy, and some smaller countries.

These fascists didn’t see anything that wrong about Hitler. He was doing everything they wanted their own countries to do. More importantly, he was hating the people they hated: Jews, Communists, liberals, unions. His leadership had made Germany strong while their own governments were weak and ineffectual. The one thing the multiple, ever-changing coalitions running the western countries in the 1930s could agree upon was that war was unthinkable. That meant Hitler also must believe that was was unthinkable.

In hindsight, we know that wasn’t true. But their hindsight told them that the Great War was the worst thing they could imagine and that everything that went into creating that disaster must be avoided.

And America was just as bad if not worse. Our military was pitiful. Our isolationists ruled public opinion. Our fascists drew huge audiences on radio and in person. Our politicians hated spending. Our capitalists were defamed. If America, which didn’t suffer even 1% of what Europe suffered in the war, acted this way, why would you expect other governments to act differently?

11

The point isn’t whether the treaty was or wasn’t exceptionally harsh in actuality but whether it was believed to be in the lead up to the war. The book you quoted reviews of devotes some time to this specifically (I read it recently. It is good.) A quote from that section:

In a footnote, it is pointed out that modern scholars disagree with that appraisal but that people at the time generally did not.

12

Part of the reason why the UK let Germany have the Sudetenland was that they were not ready to wage war. Germany had been ramping up the military, but other nations had not, and the UK knew it stood not chance at that point in time. Churchill endorsed the “appeasement” for this reason.

Hitler, OTOH, hated the Munich accords, not wanting to be tied down by agreements.

The big issue with Munich was that Chamberlain oversold it. It was not “peace in our time” and he should have known that. It was, rather, “a few months dely so we can get ready.”

Hitler’s policies in the run up to the invasion of Poland were a case of, “Let’s try this and see what happens.” Since the UK and France didn’t want to get involved in a war, they let him.

13

I think one of the things people miss a lot is that Hitler was not acting with a rational plan of analysis based on a view of the world that we would agree with. He believed in a world that was very Romantic (in the literary sense) and that he was the Great Man who had arisen to lead the German race to her proper place in the world. Mein Kampf talks about this at great length, and most of his decisions make perfect sense in the context of that world view (including the part at the end of the war where he believes there is either going to be a miracle turnaround or the Germans don’t deserve to live).

So his policies weren’t really a result of deep insight into the minds of foreign leaders, they were a case of simply pushing for what he wanted because he believed the tide of history would show that he was right. He was actually disappointed that a general war didn’t break out on several of the early occasions, and clearly felt that his achieving victory without fighting showed that he had a deeper insight into war than his generals.

14

What put that bizarre idea in your head? Churchill excoriated Munich as a “total and unmitigated defeat”.

15

On a broader note, any time you have one side that is willing to go to war, and another side that really, really does ***not ***want to go to war, the bellicose side will have an immense advantage in negotiations or demands. They can extort all the way up to the very brink of the dovish side’s tolerance limit.
Not just in war, but in everything else - divorce, breakup, business, diplomacy, careers, marriage/relationships, workplace politics, salesmanship, etc.

16

Also Norway, which began to prepare for war by calling for troops, by sending notifications thru the mail. Their own coast guard rescued German “invaders” who ships had gone down never realizing what they were doing. German paratroopers captured airports which were protected by police.

All after their neighbor Finland had been invaded and war had started 2 years earlier.

Also in Poland, they had only become a nation 30 years earlier.

17

I’m sorry… mental health issues? Losers? Would you care to clarify your use of these loaded terms before I go off in a rant?

ETA: As a perhaps useful exercise, can YOU think of any reason why the leaders of various nations didn’t intervene? I mean, didn’t intervene sooner, since France and the UK did ultimately go to war over Poland, and suffered mightily for it.

18

There’s an subtle but vital difference between winning an argument and achieving the best outcome from an argument.

There was an argument in 1939 over whether or not Europe would go to war. Hitler won that argument.

Six years later, Hitler was sticking a pistol in his mouth as Russian troops were bombing his bunker. So Hitler did not achieve the best outcome.

Hitler won the argument and ended up destroying himself and the Nazi regime he had created. He would have been far better off if lost that previous argument and a war had been avoided.

Some people get so caught up in winning an argument that they lose sight of why they’re arguing. Winning an argument is only good for you if it produces a good outcome for you.

19

In addition to the reasons others give, neither France nor Britain wanted to stand up to Hitler alone. Britain was waiting, in vain, for a strong signal of resolution from France, and vice versa.

Franklin D. Roosevelt tried to encourage a 3-way alliance of France, Britain and the Soviets, but the Western powers knew this would give Russia a free hand to invade Poland, Hungary and Romania. (In the event of course, after huge bloodshed, the West was delighted when Russia finally invaded these countries.)

20

OP has missed the point in phrasing the question.
The question should be: “why was France so helpless and did nothing to resist Nazi Germany?”

NB: I’m absolutely not indulging in lazy French bashing. The point is it’s the French army that has to come crashing in and boot Hitler out before he’s too powerful.