Why did WWII happen ?

Discussion in 'History' started by Brian Foley, May 6, 2004.

  1. glenn239 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    202
    There is a distinction being made between a "world" conflagration, and, presumably, a "local" war in which Germany emerged victorious in July 1940?

    Germany initiated the war by invading the sovereign nation of Poland. Historic precedent indicates that this action alone could reasonably be expected to cause sufficient instability in the international scene to trigger a global conflict. A speeder may run a red light in hopes that they will not broadside another vehicle, but the chance that this may not occur does not absolve the guilty party of the consequences of their reckless behavior!

    Further, I'm uncertain as to how "drawing in the USA" was selected as the decisive incident in the escalation process? The Americans did not enter the war until December 1941, almost 6 months after Hitler invaded the Soviet Union (which by the definition I think you're using, triggered the "world" war). And as you will recall, it was Germany that declared war upon the United States, and not vice versa.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Xylene Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,398
    Germany declared war on the United States in order to support the Japanese, but he need not have done so--I would argue that if he had not, the US would possibly not have sent troops to Europe, at least not until they had concentrated their main efforts into defeating the Japanese in the Pacific. I which case the war may have lasted into the 1950's.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. River Ape Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,152
    Obviously.

    This is simply untrue. One nation invading another does not regularly cause a World War -- or there would have been rather a lot of them!

    I am assuming a World War includes both hemispheres.

    It would have suited most of the world much better if the Nazis and Soviets had slugged it out without the rest of the world becoming involved. It was what the Peace Party in Britain hoped would happen. Hitler's invasion of the Soviet Union did not cause a world war.

    This is of course a perfectly valid point -- or at least it is true that it WAS the Germans who declared war.

    The US had been fighting an escalating "war by proxy" against the Germans through their support for Britain -- even occupying Iceland so that the British forces who had invaded that country could be redeployed elsewhere. Remember that the US was supplying arms and materiel to Britain even before the outbreak of war, and in defiance of a neutral position escalated the supply after the outbreak of hostilities. US support did not begin with the famous "Lend-Lease" -- that merely enabled the supply to continue after Britain's ability to pay had been exhausted.

    It was Churchill's certainty that he had Roosevelt's backing that enabled him to fight his corner within the British political arena and to defeat the Peace Party. Had Britain accepted the peace deal offered by Hess, subsequent events would have been very different, and there need have been no WWII.

    The Germans resolutely followed a policy of trying to keep the US out of the war -- doing all they could to avoid causing provocation. (Historians are more or less agreed on this fact.) Meantime, the US was planning war, despite Roosevelt's promises not to commit US men-at-arms to the conflict. In the autumn of 1941, the US's secret "ABC" plans for the invasion of Germany were revealed. Thereafter, German hopes of avoiding war with the US became vanishingly thin. It may still, however, have been unwise for Hitler to actually declare war in support of his Japanese ally.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. glenn239 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    202
    I think I understand your point of view now. Good luck with it, there seems to be some insurmountable hurdles; your definition of a world war is tailored to the argument you are making. I’d define a “major” or “global” war to encompass a certain number of the major powers.

    The defense against the (obvious) argument that Hitler caused each of the major escalations in the road to ruin (Poland, USSR, United States) looks weak.

    IMO, the case against the United Kingdom has to be improved.


    Just so long as it is understood that Hitler (and not Churchill) precipitated matters by declaring war on the United States...
     
  8. River Ape Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,152
    But you cannot believe that Hitler wanted a war with the United States?

    Rumours of secret US war plans, circulating in Fall 1941, were confirmed when on 3 December 1941, the isolationist Senator Burton Wheeler obtained a copy of the "Victory Program", part of the War Department's overall "Rainbow Five" plan. The US Army was to be built up to five million leading to a final offensive against Germany in July 1943, following its encirclement and bombing from Britain.

    Burton passed details of the Victory Program to the Chicago Tribune and Washington Herald-Times, which published them on 4 and 5 December respectively. US WAR AIMS WERE THERE IN BLACK AND WHITE -- and they were soon read in Berlin as well.

    The fact that the declaration of war came from Germany is of no particular significance. The INTENT on war came from the US. Biographers of Roosevelt agree that as early as May 1941 he revealed to several of his close circle that he was waiting for a suitable incident that would enable the US to act against Germany without appearing to the the aggressor.

    I reiterate that I am concerned with CAUSATION not BLAME. Many, after all, praise Roosevelt for wanting to go to war with Hitler rather than let him defeat Britain. On the whole, the World War turned out well for the US. Churchill, on the other hand, almost certainly betrayed the best interests of his country -- left exhausted and near-bankrupt at the end of the conflict.
     
  9. glenn239 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    202
    I sincerely doubt that Hitler wanted a war with anyone. But he was willing to use war to get what he wanted. The problem was hubris - he was very good at sensing weakness, but not as perceptive at gauging an enemy's strength. Hitler misjudged the potential of the United States; this led him down a path to confrontation that a more reasonable leader would have avoided.

    I don't think anyone argues but that FDR was more interested in war joining the war than Hitler was in accommodating his wishes. The operative question is whether or not the violent perturbations caused by Hitler's frolicking about Europe motivated this intent.

    If, by definition, causation is intrinsically linked to calculations of relative power, then war results from a schism, a disagreement, between hostile powerbrokers as to what the proper political expression of the true military balance of power is. If we are to discard moral aspects to war guilt and look only upon the realpolitik which inevitably underlies all of these decisions, then responsibility for escalation of this war still appears (to me) to belong to Hitler. His decision to invade the Soviet Union and to declare war on the United States were made under the influence of a hopelessly flawed perception of the international balance of power; (i.e., Hitler went "all in" on a pair of deuces on June 22nd, 1941). Because his strategy was so outlandishly at odds with the "true" balance of power, his actions ensured that Germany would be utterly crushed.
     
  10. River Ape Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,152
    Deciding on war is a major historic event; an actual declaration of war is diplomatic detail. By December 1941, the US was already at war with Germany in every sense short of being a fighting combattant, and had been revealed as planning the invasion of that country. The bombing of Pearl Harbor was obviously going to provoke immediate full mobilization.

    How can the diplomatic detail of Hitler's declaration of war on a country that was intent on attacking his be regarded as showing "hopelessly flawed perception"? What did it change? How did it affect the outcome of the war?

    Why don't you blame France for starting WWII by declaring war on Germany?
     
  11. River Ape Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,152
    Peter Calvocoressi, expressing the near-universal view of historians of WWII:
    Hitler had every reason to keep the United States out of the war at almost any cost and he . . . set himself not only to avoid provoking Roosevelt but also to ignore Roosevelt's provocation of him.
     
  12. crazy151drinker Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,156
    The Biggest problem Brian with your 'Theory" is the assumption that Britian and France were setting up Germany and that they were going to attack Germany when Germany was weak.

    Attack with What?? Frances military was a joke compared to the Germans and was mainly set up in a defensive posture. The British had no epic military to speak of either. I understand that you are passionate about your anti-capitalism theories but this one is bogus beyond belief.
     
  13. Brian Foley REFUSE - RESIST Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,624
    You reckon ! then explain this .
    The British Navy was the most powerful afloat and the British Airforce the second largest after Russia .
    Yeah , well , after reading your reply ...............
     
  14. River Ape Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,152
    The trouble with Brian's "industrialist/financier complexes", I think, is that finance and industry do not necessarily share the same interests. Indeed, they may sometimes have opposite interests. Henry Ford's attitude to "finance" was hostile. British post-war economic policy has been accused of favoring the interests of "the City" over those of industry. Moreover, one industry does not have the same interest as the next. Maintaining a costly coal mining industry puts up costs for energy users. Farm subsidies tend to harm almost everyone except the farmers themselves, and farm equipment and fertiliser manufacturers. Such examples are legion. A concentration on war production may root the manufacture of consumer goods out of existence.

    But what I should like to know, in particular, is your explanation for why Britain did not make peace with Germany after the fall of France. It was indeed in the interests of Britain to sit back and let Germany and Russia destroy each other. How could the best interests of Britain's "industrialist/financier complex" (insofar as such a thing exists) have been ignored? Are there actually other forces at work in the world?
     
    Last edited: Jun 10, 2005
  15. Brian Foley REFUSE - RESIST Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,624
    The Financiers are the prime power within society , these entities control societies wealth through debt , money supply etc . Industrial Complex's usually are indebted to these Financial institutions which is a source of great revenue for the Financial complex . Imperial conflicts are fuelled by the need of these Industrial Complex's to expand and control new markets or secure markets from rivals . The Financial complex piggy backs on Industrial corporations on these imperial conquests . The fortunes of these Industrial Complex's rise and fall with their nation of origin . The Financial complex simply moves to a new host as with France under Napoleon , when France faltered the Financial complex simply moved to Britain in 1814 and after WWI with Britain in tatters the Financial complex moved to America .
    Britain's industrialist/financier complex had been contracting since the end of WWI it was outdated as evidenced by the dynamic performance of the US model .Thats where America came in , this is where America saw her opportunity . Pre the Fall of France the US kept well out of it knowing full well that the Anglo-Franco alliance was hostile to US interests . Straight after the Fall of France and Britain being neutralised the US sensing imperial blood entered the picture with lend lease and after became very belligerent towards Germany . In effect America became Britains puppetmaster , using Britain as a base for US airpower to turn Germany into dust whilst Russia cannibalized the German armies on land . Its now accepted that Germany had no plans to invade Britain , and Britain knew this due to the breaking of the German enigma codes . America became Britains protector so peace was not an option for Britain . What I am saying is that after the Fall of France and the neutralization of Britain , that Great Britain ceased to be a prime player on the world economic stage .
     
  16. glenn239 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    202
    Again, no one will argue but that the impetus for war was coming from the American side. But in order to make an impression with the majority that Hitler was somehow a victim, you've got to show that the American's desire was not linked to Germany's actions in Europe between 1939 and 1941. A remarkably difficult task, I suspect.

    Can you point me to any German diplomatic demarche in the period up to December 1941 which promised, as a basis for negotiation, to address the restoration of Poland as per the September 1939 Anglo-French ultimatum? And given Germany's horrific position of weakness, what excuse could possibly present itself for not having made this offer?

    In December 1940 Hitler had, essentially, two options. The first was to accept Stalin's terms and begin the process of surrendering influence to Soviet control in Turkey and the Balkans as a method to lever the British to the table. We'll call this the "rational" option.

    The second was to accept war with the Soviet Union and the United States. This was the "irrational" option.

    Hitler's decision to risk war with the United States was "toys in the attic" crazy because he had in his possession the intelligence data showing the hopelessness of the industrial production and oil supply situations, and Germany's vulnerability to strategic interdiction of her oil supply. It was impossible but to reach the conclusion that option "b" was suicide; he undertook this course anyways, by delusionally conditioning himself to suppose these enemies were weak.


    Because Germany attacked Poland (causing the French declaration of war) and Japan attacked the United States (causing the German declaration of war). Had Poland attacked Germany, then the analogy would be valid.

    The fact that Poland was a natural German ally is a dead giveaway that Hitler's actions were bald-faced aggression for the purpose of conquest. Otherwise, why else does he attack a natural ally, and not an enemy (France)?

    Brian is merely extrapolating upon the tactics known to have been taken by the Entente Powers (whom were the aggressors in the Great War) and applied the same measures to the Second World War. Rather than being "beyond belief", it smacks more of reasoning by precedent (i.e., common sense).

    The problem with his assumptions is that Hitler never allowed the West to seize the diplomatic initiative, and hence his theory cannot be shown to be true because the Germans never sat around waiting to be cornered. But that doesn't mean that this line of reasoning is bankrupt; that it didn't happened doesn't mean it would not have happened had Hitler allowed it.

    The evidence suggests that the West greatly overestimated the military effects of a blockade before and during the war. If he's right, then these erroneous calculations will be close to the heart of the matter.

    Great Britain and Germany did not make peace for two reasons:

    1) Churchill's terms were unacceptable to Germany
    2) Hitler's terms were unacceptable to Britain.

    Traditionally, powers surrender when they are defeated. Great Britain wasn't even close to this point in 1940.

    I'd ask you a question; if Germany were in such a stronger position than Britain in the summer of 1940, then why is it Hitler that was desperately trying to make peace?
     
  17. Brian Foley REFUSE - RESIST Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,624
    This was the start of Germanys East European policy in 1871 .
    Fast forward to 1918 to 1945 era
    As I stated at the beginning of this thread WWII was a German imperial gamble to control Eastern Europe .
    Neither germany nor England forwarded any such proposals to each other .
    I would be interested if you could share what source for this claim would be .
    It was neutralized by being pushed of the continent and run out of the Balkans it posed no threat to Germany . The Royal Navy was wholly inadequately designed to fight a submarine war with Germany . The Royal Airforce was conducting a now proven impotent plan of aerial bombardment of Germany . Britain existed at first on American arms purchases then on US credit under lend lease to fund its war drive . England was finished militarily Dieppe was a classic example of such military impotency .
    Could I see where as to your claim that Hitler was desparately seeking peace with England ? The only offer of a German peace term to come from Rudolf Hess after his lunatic flight , he was a madmen .
     
  18. River Ape Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,152
    Yes; much of this is true. But you have to explain why Britain chose to follow the path of war rather than peace. The British Establishment was saw Bolshevism as a greater enemy than Nazism. Britain could not afford a long war without becoming hopelessly indebted to the US. It could only benefit from a conflict in which it remained neutral while its enemies exhausted themselves.

    Britain was apparently free to make the decision that was in its own best interest. Yet it did not.

    With Britain neutral, we may assume the US would not have been drawn into the conflict, and that there would have been no second World War (except a rather different one from different causes).

    More than anything else, the escalation into a global conflict has to be put down to the triumph of a warmongering Churchill over his political opponents. How this was possible is a matter of considerable interest -- and it needs explaining!
     
  19. River Ape Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,152
    Well, you've changed your tune!

    Why don't we begin with your own evaluation of how far you believe Germany was prepared to go to reach a peace agreement with Britain after the fall of France. Let me know YOUR understanding of the situation -- in regard to Poland and more generally. I agree it is not easy to evaluate because of the secrecy surrounding negotiations with an enemy in wartime.

    Are you telling me that you are in disagreement with Peter Calvocoressi (quoted earlier) and almost all other serious historians of WWII in their assessment that Hitler tried to avoid conflict with the US?

    Exactly! Decisions to attack are important. Declarations are mere diplomatic superstructure.

    This statement would strike a lot of people as odd! Germans and Slavs are traditional enemies. The Poles had drawn up lists of Germans living in Poland, and began rounding them up and executing them after the German invasion -- arguably the first major atrocities against civilians in WWII.

    This will not do. Hitler understood that an alliance between Germany and Britain was what made most sense to both countries, and this is what he wanted. Much of the British Establishment wanted peace with Germany, and had a preference for Hitler over Stalin. It was Churchill's rejection of peace that was "irrational" -- except in terms of his hatred of the Germans and desire for personal glory, or else for reasons we do not yet fully understand.

    Of course Hitler wanted peace with Britain and its Empire. That had always been his aim. He admired the British and wanted to enrol them (even if not as active participants) in the struggle against Bolshevism.
     
  20. glenn239 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    202
    Agreed insofar as Hitler’s basic strategy was to resurect the Triple Alliance while keeping the Triple Entente divided. But “controlling Eastern Europe” required the elimination of the French, not Polish, army.

    As far as I’m aware, Churchill did not elaborate on his war objectives during this timeframe? If this assumption is correct, then is it not safest to take reference to the Anglo-French ultimatum of September 1939 as the basis of his aims?

    The “now proven” impotency of the British aerial campaign doesn’t apply to 1940, obviously. At that point in time the British establishment had great hopes for strategic bombing.

    Proof for a topic that remains shrouded in mystery to this day?
    Would you agree with the observation that Hitler was more interested in securing peace than Churchill was in granting it?

    This supposes the rather remarkable notion that the British drove American policy! Whether Great Britain had or had not made peace with Germany by this time would not materially have altered the direction of American policy if and when Germany invaded the Soviet Union in June 1941.
     
  21. River Ape Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,152
    Well, in a sense, that is what Roosevelt claimed. Did he not make several remarks to the effect that he could not stand by and see Britain defeated? I don't believe I would have to search too long to find one of them.

    A more cynical view was that American policy was driven by Britain's purchases of arms and materiel for gold and dollars -- and then by Britain's willingness to mortgage its future to buy more.

    Either way, it made a big difference to the US whether Britain opted for peace or war.

    Really? You are saying that the US would have gone to the aid of the Bolsheviks whilst the British Empire remained neutral? Do I understand you correctly? Are you quite sure?

    Justify this claim. Was American policy guided by the arms manufacturers? or by the communists inside the Roosevelt administration? or by the Jews?
     
  22. Brian Foley REFUSE - RESIST Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,624
    If you read my thread :
    Communism was no such threat to Britain as Russia was thourougly isolated and surrounded . Facism/Nazism was a capitalist ideology which was very much in favour and admired by the British and French ruling classes .

    Britain due to her now vulnerable economic situation became a pawn of the American economic dynamo to which Britain turned too . That was in Britains interest , because seeking peace with Germany would of literally stripped Britain of her imperial assets .

    Churchill was second choice after Chamberlin resigned in May 1940 , Halifax was the preferred choice to replace Chamberlin , Halifax declined , Churchill assumed the appointment just a few days before the French collapse . After the British rout at Dunkirque and losses on the High seas and losing one third of its Airforce in France , Britain was in no position to wage any conflict without major aid . This where America stepped in and took over control of the Western sphere in the war against Germany .
     
  23. Brian Foley REFUSE - RESIST Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,624
    Poland originally within the German plan was going to be the springboard for the invasion of Russia , this was to be accomplished though negotiations . Poland was offered a favourable treaty with Germany with many economic enticements in return for the settlement of Danzig and a military alliance which would allow Germany to place troops in Poland . Poland only balked because of the Anglo/Franco alliance Poland had with those 2 nations Poland , and at the insistence of their Anglo/Franco allies refused Germany's offer . Germany was left with no option but invasion and physical occupation of Poland , so this situation led to the Nazi/Soviet pact which was to buy time for Germany whilst they dealt with the Anglo/Franco alliance in the West .


    It is safe to say that after May 1940 , with the conquest of France , that the situation was far different from the position of strength the Anglo/Franco allaince had in Sept 1939 .


    I was giving an example , however until US military involvment against Germany in 1942 , Britains military campaign against Germany was wholly ineffective and reliant on US material aid .


    It no longer mattered , Britain was militarily neutralized and offered no threat to Germany , so Germany had no obligation to offer any peace terms to Britain .
     

Share This Page