Was WW2 inevitable?

I have been looking at the inter-war years, and it seems very unlikely to me that some sort of large scale war would not happen again. Mainly, the outcome of Versailles leads me to believe that.

Anyone have any opinions?

 

Many parts of the Versailles treaty had been already softened by 1932, and the reamining(except the existance of the cordon sanitaire-states) would have vanished away during the 1930-ies, Hitler or not.

WW II was not neccessary. The basic mistake was to not occupy Germany entirely in 1918 (by insisting on unconditional surrender) and to "lead" the "new" Weimar Germany into the more or less democratic, western camp.

But hindsight is 20/20.

Cheers

[ 12 September 2002, 06:50 PM: Message edited by: AndyW ]

 

Well, WWII was not inevitable at all. Perhaps that in the Pacific was... But talking about Europe:

Without Hitler on sight, even the resented and conservative Germans would have made some noise in Europe. Let's remember that Germany had already developing new weaponry and preparing the army prior to the NSDAP raise to power. But I don't think they would have defeated France nor ruled all over Europe, much less invading the USSR. Things had been partially solved with the unfair "Versailles". It is just Hitler which exploited all the resented minds of Europe and threw them to war. It is not like WWI, for example, which was an obligatory war at all. It had to happen (it should not have happened the way it did) but it had to happen. But WWII was provoked by three countries only and they had the entire fault of it. In WWI nobody is innocent, all Europe wanted to go to war. It is different in 1939, at least in Europe.

Japan and USA had to fight. As I have said before, there could only have been ONE power in the Pacific and both nations, Japan and USA wanted to be that one. That's the perfect landscape for war.

 

I definitely agree about the Pacific, war was almost inevitable there. AndyW; interesting point about occupying Germany in 1918. Had they done that, though, Germany might be even more resentful towards the Allies. Especially considering the potential abuses France would want to inflict. After the first world war, it would be mostly Western European powers (Britain, France) occupying Germany. The Russians might want a piece of the action; and they would likely be denied. An occupation of Germany might have bred excellent grounds for a new war.

 

I dunno, why would the Western Allies treat Germany any worse than they did in 45?
Plus the nations that occupied Germany could have controled the government better by setting up some sort of pro-western democratic system.
With the occupation and a Government in power groups like Hilter's and the communists and others would not have been able to gain power or for that matter fight in the streets.
Once order was restored and confidence was gained in the Democratic government i think the likelyhood of war would have dwindled. Plus if occupation occured i'm sure they would not have left in a short time. The only time the Western nations would leave would be when the set up government was firmly established and had control of things.
If however for some reason the occupiers did abandon occupation of Germany, like say in the 30's...then the likely hood of war rises dramatically for it probably would throw germany into political chaos and then we would eventually have ww2 again...but just on a different time frame!
OH and thanks dasreich...for that "nice web site" in your signature My sound was really loud...and all of a sudden all i hear is YOU ARE AN IDIOT. lol

[ 12 September 2002, 10:45 PM: Message edited by: Ron ]

 

After ww2, The Allies had an incentive to treat Germany well; they needed West Germany in order to contain the Soviets, and provide vital first line defense in the event of war. There was no such enemy at the end of ww1. The Allies would be free to enact whatever revenge they see fit. Plus, when the depression hit, who knows what could have happened. A full scale looting could have easily occurred (depression or no, really).

Ron; your welcome. I aim to please!

 

Interesting points about the Pacific. Japan felt she needed to go to war. She was feeling it economically due to trade restrictions and needed to secure supplies for her industries. On this she was up against the US. So I agree war in the Pacific between Japan and the US wasprobably inevitable.

War in Europe though, may not have been, even with Hitler in power. Hitler stated once that when Germany re-occupied the Ruhr, if the French and British had reacted then and sent in their troops, Germany would have withdrawn her forces immediately from the area. he felt at that time the Wehrmacht was not ready for combat. If the French and British had then increased the pressure, things may have been different.

It's true that if the Allies had occupied Germany after WW1, they may have been able to instigate a reasonable democratic government, but you have to remember they were war weary (except maybe the US0 and probably hoped that the Versailles Treaty and the huge reparations forced on Germany would be enough to ensure peace for a long time. Basically at that time, because of the huge losses in men suffered by the Allies, sending in occupation troops was never a serious consideration. Everybody had had enough of the slaughter and just wanted to go home.

If Germany had turned into a Democratic Republic, WW2 would probably never have occurred as we know it. You probably would have had small wars, say between Roumania and Bulgaria, who had a long running territorial dispute going on, but nothing big like WW2.

_________________

"It is easier to make war, than to make peace" - Clemenceau, Verdun 1919

 

Agreed on the European situation.

I don´t know as much about the Pacific area politics, except that the Japs were fighting a long time (before the war with the US) in China area.
I just happened to read an article on this and I was wondering if you guys had an idea different from this report, as it may look like FDR and the US politics actually caused the Pearl harbor and war?? I would like to hear your comments on this.

"By Spring 1941 Japan only had enough fuel to the end of the year when we slapped on a literal blockade even of food stuffs. Now Japan was not only facing the collapse of its economy, not only its ability to defend itself but now mass starvation as well. It was impossible to keep acceding to the never-ending stream of demands by the USA eventhough the new militarist PM Tojo himself didn’t want war with the West. Tojo himself pushed the planned attacks back from August to October and finally December. Japan had no choice but to defend itself. It attacked the blockading powers in December 1941, including Pearl Harbor. "

http://www.monarch.net/users/miller/ww2/history/hitlersgamble.html

 

Yes it was more-or-less inevitable becuase of the problem of Germany. Trying to accomodate Germany into the traditional European structure had been the challenge facing statesmen for nearly a century. The eventual solution seems to have been successfully reached: harnessing 85 million people for the good of Europe rather than a narrow chauvanistic nationalism.

Jumbo

 

Wilsons 14 points - a lesson in unfinished business. The peace conditions of the Entete were more harsh. Applying unconditional surrender on Germany would have opened the way for a new beginning rather than conserving German worldpower dreams into the next generation.

Cheers,

 

If this would be true: Why did the WAllies insist on unconditional surrender iso negotiating a seperate peace with Germany in 1944?

Cheers,

 

Because that would have provoked the Soviets, at a time when their alliance is still needed. And the Cold War animosity was only beginning; Germany was still that bad guy in 1944.

 

Postwar treatment of Germany was originally intended to be quite harsh. The US Army document JCS1067 outlines how occupying forces should deal with the Germans. Intervention in running civilian affairs was only to be contemplated if it placed the occupying forces at risk. General Clay repeatedly resorted to this clause, arguing that a starving and unhappy population placed his troops at risk: Clay saw the reality and wanted to help the Germans rebuild.

The French originally wanted Versailles-plus, favouring a dismemberment of Germany into 3 states, as did the US treasury as part of the Morgenthau plan. So allied policy in 1945 towards Germany was officially to be harsh to the population, but on the ground it worked out differently.

Jumbo

 

Interesting topic here...

I'd see major problems with the idea of the allies occupying germany in 1918. Who? None of the nations involved wanted to stay on a wartime footing. The US had been completey against the war early on, and isolationist sentiments were building. England and France ahd lsot millions of people- I doubt they would want to spend more years babysitting germany. The allies had enough problems. "Basically at that time, because of the huge losses in men suffered by the Allies, sending in occupation troops was never a serious consideration. Everybody had had enough of the slaughter and just wanted to go home." Sniper, couldn't have said it better myself.

Also, I don't think we can easily assume that the allies could just install a Democracy and have everyone in germany be happy. Just because democracy works in some places, dosen't mean it could have simply been forced on the germans. Allied insistence on a post-ww1 (or ww2 for that matter) democracy in germany could likely have had the opposite effect- germans probably would have hated the democracy, simply because it was forced on them by the allies.

And the worldwide economic Depression is also a huge point. Germany clearly was dissatisfied after WW1- they lost! Combine this with massive economic problems and germany became very unstable after ww1.

On the ww2 issues- dasreich has it with the post-war treatment of germany. A seperate peace was not an option. By 1944, especially FDR had committed to not making a seperate peace. The Last Battle (Cornelius Ryan) gives a great account of many of the political dealing around this time. Churchill might have considered a seperate peace with the germans- he was paranoid about teh russians. But FDR made it very clear he would accept a seperate peace.

I don't really think anything in history is "inevitable", but the conditions in german and europe following ww1 certainly made it easy for another war to follow...

 

Yes, and the French and the Russians were harsh occupiers, taking what was left of industrial equipment to their respective countries, but in the British and American sectors, AFAIK, rebuilding started in almost full force as soon as the war ended. At least by 1946 it was well underway.

When was the Morgentau Plan rejected in favour of the Marshall Plan?

 

Andreas

Morgenthau's plan fell apart by late 1944, at the hands of Secretary of War Stimson. It had been agreed as policy at the Quebec conference - Churchill agreeing as he was desperate to have lend-lease extended after the surrender of Germany. Marshall was not until 1947:it takes the Czech coup of that year to break the opposition to it in Congress.

Jumbo

 

Because that would have provoked the Soviets, at a time when their alliance is still needed. And the Cold War animosity was only beginning; Germany was still that bad guy in 1944.</font>[/QUOTE]I don't get it:

You are saying that the WAllies had an interest to treat Germany well because they needed them against the Soviets, but the WAllies had to insist on unconditional surrender because they needed the Soviets to crush down the very same Germany they needed to defend the Soviets??

I don't see any logic at all in that! You can't milk the cow if you drown her in milk!

Basically the WAllies had two choices:

- Crush down Germany, so insisting on unconditional surrender. (the historical event)

- Defend against the USSR, so separate peace with Germany and together against the USSR.

But insisting on unconditional surrender to keep the Russians in place tom defeat Germany which the WAllies needed to contain the Russians?

No, I don't get this.

Cheers,

[ 13 September 2002, 07:16 PM: Message edited by: AndyW ]

 

That's why you need an occupation Army. But the fact that democratization in W-Germany worked extraordinary well after 1945 is a clear sign that it would have worked as well after 1918 and unconditional surrender.

The Western Powers (incl. USA) paid a high price (espec. France) for their unfinished business in 1918.

Cheers,

 

Certainly, making peace with Germany by separate at any moment was not an option. It would have made the Soviets very angry...

Then, you must know that Franklin Rooslvelt had actually talked several times with Stalin alone during Yalta, having an attitude of adulation, let's not say ass kissing, because he knew that they needed the USSR to help finishing the job and doing all the dirty job, even if this meant to give all Eastern Europe away... Beside, he knew that if a break with Stalin happened it would have meant the bloodiest and cruelest conflict in the history of man kind... Really, it was not an option.

 

Hello...

Anyway, I´d be interested to hear opinions on this text. The site is mentioned on 13th Sept above by me.

"By Spring 1941 Japan only had enough fuel to the end of the year when we slapped on a literal blockade even of food stuffs. Now Japan was not only facing the collapse of its economy, not only its ability to defend itself but now mass starvation as well. It was impossible to keep acceding to the never-ending stream of demands by the USA eventhough the new militarist PM Tojo himself didn’t want war with the West. Tojo himself pushed the planned attacks back from August to October and finally December. Japan had no choice but to defend itself. It attacked the blockading powers in December 1941, including Pearl Harbor."