History Community ~ All Empires Homepage


This is the Archive on WORLD Historia, the old original forum.

 You cannot post here - you can only read.

 

Here is the link to the new forum:

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Forum LockedCauses Of World War II

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1234 10>
Author
deadkenny View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 21-Aug-2007
Status: Offline
Points: 994
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote deadkenny Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08-Mar-2008 at 15:01
Originally posted by Temujin Temujin wrote:

i disagree. 3 is actually really redundant. Hitler was going to get Czechoslovakia anyways, he had already plans to take it by force if he doesn't get it at Munich. this is actually what happened with Danzig which started the war. so appeasement only postponed ww2 but it is most certainly not a cause.


I'm not so sure appeasement really 'delayed' WWII.  If Hitler had gone ahead and attacked Czechoslovakia, assuming that the agreement at Munich doesn't happen, then you're looking at a weaker Germany facing not only a decent Czech army in it's own 'Maginot Line', but also the French, British and possibly the Poles as well.  In addition, the Soviets would be obligated to support the Czech's, although without transit rights through Poland or Rumania, they may not have been able to offer much direct assistance.  Add to all of that the fact that Germany was much weaker militarily in 1938 than in 1939 and the prospects don't look very good for Germany.  Hitler would either have to back down or face a quick defeat.  What Hitler WANTED was an isolated war against Czechoslovakia alone.  However, given the diplomacy at the time, that wasn't a realistic expectation.  The outcome of Munich was a significant factor in turning Stalin away from a 'collective security' approach which opposed Germany and towards collaboration with Germany.  That, combined with the poor relations with Poland produced the Nazi-Soviet pact, once Hitler determined that France and Britain were not going to allow him to have his 'isolated' war against Poland. 

I would give Hitler credit for being able to recognize an obviously 'no-win' situation, and back down in time.  Thus appeasement in effect brought on WWII, by allowing Germany to manoeuver themselves into a position where they felt they might reasonably win.  At a minimum it would have taken much longer for Germany to build up to the point where they could have taken on multiple opponents at the same time, without the resources provided by their occupation of Czech territories, or the resources supply to them by the Soviet Union due to the pact.
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." George Santayana
Back to Top
deadkenny View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 21-Aug-2007
Status: Offline
Points: 994
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote deadkenny Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08-Mar-2008 at 15:06
Originally posted by aslanlar aslanlar wrote:

1.) only comes into play because Hitler came to power. Before '33 i don't recall mass demonstrations for breaking the treaty of versailles?


The Germans were in violation of Versailles before Hitler, although it was less 'open'.  For example the Germans were collaborating with the Soviets in early air and armour 'experiments', which they were not allowed by Versailles.  They also made use of 'paramilitary' forces outside of the 100,000 man army limit.  However, those technical violations were easy to overlook, since they were not 'blatant' and Germany was otherwise 'behaving' themselves.  It was only under Hitler that the open repudiation and blatant violation of Versailles started.
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." George Santayana
Back to Top
aslanlar View Drop Down
Samurai
Samurai
Avatar

Joined: 12-May-2007
Status: Offline
Points: 124
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote aslanlar Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08-Mar-2008 at 16:29

Sure but breaking the Treaty of Versailles is different then an inevitable path to global conquest isn't it? Do you think the Weimar Republic was heading in that direction?

"The league is alright when sparrows dispute but it can do little when eagles argue" -Mussolini
Back to Top
deadkenny View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 21-Aug-2007
Status: Offline
Points: 994
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote deadkenny Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08-Mar-2008 at 18:15
Originally posted by aslanlar aslanlar wrote:

Sure but breaking the Treaty of Versailles is different then an inevitable path to global conquest isn't it? Do you think the Weimar Republic was heading in that direction?
 
Yes, I agree with you in making that distinction.  There were certain aspects of Versailles that produced practically universal agreement in Germany - e.g. severe military restrictions, Rhineland occupation, massive reparations, 'German' territory in other countries, the Polish 'corridor' in particular.  However, whereas prior to Hitler coming to power, Germany had sought to mitigate the most objectionable conditions within a diplomatic framework; Nazi Germany openly repudiated Versailles and threatened and ultimately used 'force'.  Also, as you noted, the ultimate objective of Weimar was simply to 'restore' Germany to an unrestricted 'Great Power' status, along the lines of pre-WWI.  Hitler's objective was to 'dominate' Europe, with the move to the east, and become a dominant world power.  So both the methods and the ultimate objectives differed, although in the short term they shared some common goals.
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." George Santayana
Back to Top
Temujin View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar
Sirdar Bahadur

Joined: 02-Aug-2004
Location: Eurasia
Status: Offline
Points: 5237
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Temujin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08-Mar-2008 at 20:42
Originally posted by deadkenny deadkenny wrote:


I'm not so sure appeasement really 'delayed' WWII.  If Hitler had gone ahead and attacked Czechoslovakia, assuming that the agreement at Munich doesn't happen, then you're looking at a weaker Germany facing not only a decent Czech army in it's own 'Maginot Line', but also the French, British and possibly the Poles as well.  In addition, the Soviets would be obligated to support the Czech's, although without transit rights through Poland or Rumania, they may not have been able to offer much direct assistance.  Add to all of that the fact that Germany was much weaker militarily in 1938 than in 1939 and the prospects don't look very good for Germany.  Hitler would either have to back down or face a quick defeat.  What Hitler WANTED was an isolated war against Czechoslovakia alone.  However, given the diplomacy at the time, that wasn't a realistic expectation.  The outcome of Munich was a significant factor in turning Stalin away from a 'collective security' approach which opposed Germany and towards collaboration with Germany.  That, combined with the poor relations with Poland produced the Nazi-Soviet pact, once Hitler determined that France and Britain were not going to allow him to have his 'isolated' war against Poland. 

I would give Hitler credit for being able to recognize an obviously 'no-win' situation, and back down in time.  Thus appeasement in effect brought on WWII, by allowing Germany to manoeuver themselves into a position where they felt they might reasonably win.  At a minimum it would have taken much longer for Germany to build up to the point where they could have taken on multiple opponents at the same time, without the resources provided by their occupation of Czech territories, or the resources supply to them by the Soviet Union due to the pact.


mmh don't think so. Poland and Czechoslovakia weren't exactly good friends, actually Poland participated in the division of CZ. also the Wehrmacht was more or less the same that would begin the war with Poland a year later. eventually the Czechoslovakian defense mattered little to Hitler, just like fighting the whole world mattered little to him.
Back to Top
deadkenny View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 21-Aug-2007
Status: Offline
Points: 994
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote deadkenny Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08-Mar-2008 at 21:26
Originally posted by Temujin Temujin wrote:

mmh don't think so. Poland and Czechoslovakia weren't exactly good friends, actually Poland participated in the division of CZ. also the Wehrmacht was more or less the same that would begin the war with Poland a year later. eventually the Czechoslovakian defense mattered little to Hitler, just like fighting the whole world mattered little to him.
 
While it is true that the Poles and Czechs were not on the best of terms, they were both indirectly linked via treaties with France.  In a conflict with Germany attacking Czechoslovakia, and France, Britain and the Soviet Union all supporting the Czechs, there was no chance at all of the Poles attacking the Czechs and in fact it was likely that the Poles would join in with France and Britain.
 
As for the Wehrmacht being 'more or less the same' in fall '38 as it was fall '39, that is totally wrong.  Taking over the Czech military equipment, and their industry, was critical to German re-armament efforts historically.  The Germans not only incorporated Czech tanks into their Panzer formations, but actually continued to produce the later versions in the Czech factories they took over.  Furthermore, it wasn't just a matter of military strength.  The pact with the Soviets was critical not only in avoiding having to fight the Red Army at the same time as the French and British, but it also provided Germany with critical resources that mitigated much of the effect of the blockade.  Germany was in a much weaker position, diplomatically, militarily as well as economically in 1938 than there were in 1939.  Hitler could and did 'bluster' with the best of them, however, he also knew when things were lining up to his disadvantage and knew when to back off.  The units moving into the Rhineland in '36 had orders to back off if the French looked like they would fight.  He secured Il Duce's 'blessing' in '38 before moving into Austria.  Previously, in '34, Hitler had 'backed off' in Austria when Italy appeared ready to support Austria after the Nazis assassinated Dollfuss.  Even earlier in '38, Hitler had backed off when there was a 'crisis' over Czechoslovakia in May 1938, caused by his 'massing' of troops along the Czech border.  So, Hitler demonstrated that he would back off in spite of his rhetoric, when circumstances were unfavourable.
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." George Santayana
Back to Top
02bburco View Drop Down
Samurai
Samurai
Avatar

Joined: 12-Mar-2008
Location: Southamtpon
Status: Offline
Points: 121
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote 02bburco Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20-Jul-2008 at 13:59
there are two answer, a short and a long one
 
1. Hitler
 
2. Economic unrest causing hyperinflation, which in tern causes soical unrest which allows extrist parties like the Nazis to flurish and exploit conditions
 
other factors include the, unstable politcal system of a coalition which was easily exploited, the constant underestemation of hitler by the politcs powers and of cuase the nazis excelent use of propaganda
Back to Top
AdamantFire View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary
Avatar

Joined: 17-Jul-2008
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Points: 0
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote AdamantFire Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20-Jul-2008 at 14:33
Originally posted by 02bburco 02bburco wrote:

there are two answer, a short and a long one
 
1. Hitler
 
2. Economic unrest causing hyperinflation, which in tern causes soical unrest which allows extrist parties like the Nazis to flurish and exploit conditions
 
other factors include the, unstable politcal system of a coalition which was easily exploited, the constant underestemation of hitler by the politcs powers and of cuase the nazis excelent use of propaganda


Agreed.  The social unrest made it nearly impossible for some people to get food, which was easily exploited by anyone who could get that food to them.

An interesting note, and something not to be dismissed, is that once the Nazi movement started, many people joined because of the party structure and also because of Himmler's recruitment efforts (the Leibstandarte grew from a few thousand to around 50,000 within a few years), but also the uniforms.  Seeing 50,000 men march in Berlin in sharp black uniforms, seeing the SA march in theirs, as well as the Hitler Youth (many of them in their memoirs remember wanting to be in the Hitler Jugend because they would get a uniform), was a huge draw for a culture that placed heavy emphasis on masculine strength and military service.  From the Stahlhelm and Tellerschm├╝tze to the insignia and medal on their uniforms, people were sold at least on the look of the Nazi party.

It's really interesting to think that without a few pieces of cloth, the Nazi movement wouldn't have seemed nearly as attractive, though it could have still be successful.
Back to Top
Al Jassas View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 07-Aug-2007
Status: Offline
Points: 1809
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Al Jassas Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20-Jul-2008 at 15:00
Hello to you all
 
Well,  I have been reading into WWII since summer began and spent quite some time reading into the events leading to the war.
 
One interesting theory I found and it really changed alot in my mind, said that it was the failure of the Czech government to resist the Nazi's militarily that brought the war. He said, and I didn't find anything that contradicted it, that the Czech army was as big as the German one in 38 and much better equippe. He said that France, threatened by a German advance would have definetly joined the Czechs, a thing that would also have forced the Brits to join and all in all Germany would have stood no chance. Yet the failure of the Czech leadership and their refusal to confront of threats from Germany led them to accept surrender without a single shot and this not only streangthened German resolve, it further advanced pascifism and defeatism among the allies.
 
Is this a possible theory?
 
AL-Jassas
Back to Top
Bankotsu View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel


Joined: 27-Feb-2007
Status: Offline
Points: 511
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Bankotsu Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20-Jul-2008 at 15:23
Major reasons why there was war in 1939 were Hitler's ambitions to expand eastwards and british policy of appeasement.

Hitler wanted to expand east and Britain encouraged and let Hitler expand eastwards against Russia.
 

Edited by Bankotsu - 20-Jul-2008 at 15:35
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 06-Dec-2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 7011
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20-Jul-2008 at 15:26
Bankotsu, in view of what you asked recently in another thread, is it not significant that everybody dismisses your position?
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork
Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.
Back to Top
Bankotsu View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel


Joined: 27-Feb-2007
Status: Offline
Points: 511
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Bankotsu Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20-Jul-2008 at 15:28
You mean neo-con group?
Back to Top
deadkenny View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 21-Aug-2007
Status: Offline
Points: 994
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote deadkenny Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20-Jul-2008 at 15:58
Originally posted by Bankotsu Bankotsu wrote:

Hitler wanted to expand east and Britain encouraged and let Hitler expand eastwards against Russia. 
 
So now you're going to repeat your 'conspiracy theory' in every thread that even tangentially involves the issue?  This is discussed exhaustively in your other thread.  Not to carry over the entire argument here, but a brief synopsis for those who do not care to reference that other thread: 
 
Rhineland - west, not east of Germany
Austria - south, not east of Germany
Sudetenland - south, not east of Germany
 
The one territory that was east of Germany, and would have provided Germany with a common border with the Soviet Union was Poland.  Britain declared war on Germany when Germany invaded Poland.  Your assertion that 'Britain encouraged and let Hitler expand easwards against Russia.' is false, failing the first and most obvious reality check. 


Edited by deadkenny - 20-Jul-2008 at 15:59
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." George Santayana
Back to Top
Bankotsu View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel


Joined: 27-Feb-2007
Status: Offline
Points: 511
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Bankotsu Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20-Jul-2008 at 16:02
deadkenny, I have refuted all of your above points before, but you keep on repeating it over and over.

Why?

So you refuse to agree with my refutations?


Edited by Bankotsu - 20-Jul-2008 at 16:03
Back to Top
deadkenny View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 21-Aug-2007
Status: Offline
Points: 994
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote deadkenny Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20-Jul-2008 at 16:10
Originally posted by Bankotsu Bankotsu wrote:

deadkenny, I have refuted all of your above points before, but you keep on repeating it over and over.

Why?

So you refuse to agree with my refutations?
 
You're a legend in your own mind.  You've not 'refuted' any of my points.  Are you disputing the geography of where the Rhineland, Austria and Sudetenland are located with respect to Germany?  Are you disputing the British declaration of war on Germany when Poland was invaded?  Not a single territorial gain by the Germans, which was 'allowed' by the British, provided a common border with the Soviet Union.  Your only response has been that Chamberlain didn't want to declare war, he was forced to by the political conditions in Britain that made another 'appeasement' of Hitler impossible.  However, that says absolutely nothing about what British policy was, your claim (which I do not agree with, but that is another argument) is simply limited to Chamberlain and a few others.  The majority of the cabinet, Parliament and voters in Britain would not accept further appeasement and so Chamberlain was 'forced' to carry out the new British policy which led to the declaration of war.
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." George Santayana
Back to Top
Majkes View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar
Imperial Ambassador

Joined: 06-May-2006
Location: Poland
Status: Offline
Points: 1143
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Majkes Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20-Jul-2008 at 16:14
Originally posted by Al Jassas Al Jassas wrote:

Hello to you all
 
Well,  I have been reading into WWII since summer began and spent quite some time reading into the events leading to the war.
 
One interesting theory I found and it really changed alot in my mind, said that it was the failure of the Czech government to resist the Nazi's militarily that brought the war. He said, and I didn't find anything that contradicted it, that the Czech army was as big as the German one in 38 and much better equippe. He said that France, threatened by a German advance would have definetly joined the Czechs, a thing that would also have forced the Brits to join and all in all Germany would have stood no chance. Yet the failure of the Czech leadership and their refusal to confront of threats from Germany led them to accept surrender without a single shot and this not only streangthened German resolve, it further advanced pascifism and defeatism among the allies.
 
Is this a possible theory?
 
AL-Jassas
 
Let's not exaggerate Czechoslovakia's power. Czech army wasn't as big as German.
The truth is they were well equipped and the country was industralized. Czechs also had skoda factories and produced good tanks. So conquering Czechoslovakia really improved German tank production. Czechs could also defend themselves well in Sudety cause of rupnik's line and when Germans took Sudety after Munich deal they were defendless.
saying this the fact is that Germans would take Czechoslovakia anyway as that was no opposition for Germans ( see French example ).
Why France would have joined Czech fight against Germany I completely don't understand. they didn't join Poland later on. The whole theory is one big if.
Back to Top
Al Jassas View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 07-Aug-2007
Status: Offline
Points: 1809
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Al Jassas Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20-Jul-2008 at 16:28
Well the reason is, according to the guy Robert Jackson, is a different government in France and a better chance for the Czechs to defend their territory successfully. Germany in 38 was still weak and hitler was still not extremely popular. The Army under Halder was still planning for a coup and he said that if the plans for Czechslovakia failed, Halder would have definetly made the coup.
 
AL-Jassas
Back to Top
Majkes View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar
Imperial Ambassador

Joined: 06-May-2006
Location: Poland
Status: Offline
Points: 1143
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Majkes Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20-Jul-2008 at 17:51
I never heard of Halder's coup planns so I can't say about it. Sure is that with Sudety mountains Czechs would have much better chance to defend themselves against Germany. maybe the war would break out earlier but the same we can say about Austria anschluz. If Allies would attack back then Hitler would have been finnished earlier.
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 06-Dec-2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 7011
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20-Jul-2008 at 20:14
Originally posted by Bankotsu Bankotsu wrote:

deadkenny, I have refuted all of your above points before, but you keep on repeating it over and over.

Why?

So you refuse to agree with my refutations?
 
You haven't 'refuted' anything. You haven't even addressed the points against you. You just keep going on and on with the same old links to the same old biassed sources, including soviet propaganda and someone who believes that the whole thing was part of the machinations of a secret organisation - the Round Table - founded by Cecil Rhodes to ensure Anglo-American domination of the world.
 
For which the only thing that can be said is that it makes a change from the Freemasons being responsible.
 
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork
Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.
Back to Top
scottmanning13 View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 08-Nov-2006
Location: Philadelphia
Status: Offline
Points: 0
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote scottmanning13 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21-Jul-2008 at 00:36
Originally posted by Al Jassas Al Jassas wrote:

Hello to you all
 
Well,  I have been reading into WWII since summer began and spent quite some time reading into the events leading to the war.
 
One interesting theory I found and it really changed alot in my mind, said that it was the failure of the Czech government to resist the Nazi's militarily that brought the war. He said, and I didn't find anything that contradicted it, that the Czech army was as big as the German one in 38 and much better equippe. He said that France, threatened by a German advance would have definetly joined the Czechs, a thing that would also have forced the Brits to join and all in all Germany would have stood no chance. Yet the failure of the Czech leadership and their refusal to confront of threats from Germany led them to accept surrender without a single shot and this not only streangthened German resolve, it further advanced pascifism and defeatism among the allies.
 
Is this a possible theory?
 
AL-Jassas

Germany's consumption of portions of Czechoslovakia was just one of many dominoes.

Someone pointed out the lack of Czech military strength. You should also consider that portions of their land were agreed to be given up to Germany at the Munich Agreement in 1938. This agreement notified the Czech government that Germany was going to claim portions of the country and Britain, France, and Italy would give no support if they chose to resist.

When Hitler moved in to take more portions of the country in 1939, what kind of resistance could the Czechs offer? Should they fight knowing full well that their strongest allies just agreed to give Germany portions of the country less than a year earlier?

Had the Czechs resisted at this point, Germany would have still taken over Prague. It would have taken an extra few days, but it still would have happened. I don't see the British or the French declaring war at this stage in the game.


Edited by scottmanning13 - 21-Jul-2008 at 00:37
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1234 10>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 11.10
Copyright ©2001-2017 Web Wiz Ltd.

This page was generated in 0.078 seconds.