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  123 10>
Author
Anton View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph


Joined: 23-Jun-2006
Location: Bulgaria
Status: Offline
Points: 2888
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Anton Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Causes Of World War II
    Posted: 06-Jun-2009 at 12:42
Originally posted by Sun Tzu Sun Tzu wrote:

There is no doubt about WWII being a continuation of WWI, although I have to disagree about Britain and France being the aggressors. Of course I wasn't around back then so maybe I'm wrong, but none of the of the old world powers (Britain and France) would want a war as they were still recovering from WWI. WWI in my opinion was caused by almost everyone because at the turn of the century there a newly reformed Germany wanting to flex its muscles. An Imperialistic Britain and France wanting to expand and a young and rising world power the U.S.. WWI left Europe devastated it ravaged France especailly because the main theater of war was situated there (Western Front).
 
I agree with you that Germany would most likely start the war, but I think the reasons are different -- Germany needed access to resources for developing her economy. Something that GB, France ans Soviet Union had.
.
Back to Top
Sun Tzu View Drop Down
Consul
Consul
Avatar

Joined: 31-Oct-2007
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 362
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Sun Tzu Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30-May-2009 at 03:40
There is no doubt about WWII being a continuation of WWI, although I have to disagree about Britain and France being the aggressors. Of course I wasn't around back then so maybe I'm wrong, but none of the of the old world powers (Britain and France) would want a war as they were still recovering from WWI. WWI in my opinion was caused by almost everyone because at the turn of the century there a newly reformed Germany wanting to flex its muscles. An Imperialistic Britain and France wanting to expand and a young and rising world power the U.S.. WWI left Europe devastated it ravaged France especailly because the main theater of war was situated there (Western Front).

France was still very weak and all countries were suffering from depression, Germany however was almost unscathed but yet they were defeated. Their defeat left many Germans confused and angry and all that confusion and anger needed was a man that could uses all that anger to his will.

So the main cause of WWII was WWI but not just the war, but the way the Allied powers treated Germany and all the demands they exacted on them.
Sun Tzu

All warfare is based on deception - Sun Tzu
Back to Top
warwolf1969 View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary


Joined: 08-May-2009
Status: Offline
Points: 22
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote warwolf1969 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29-May-2009 at 23:14
WW2 was basically the continuation of WW1.  The end of WW1 did nothing to sort out the tensions involved.  They just simmered under the surface.  If it hadn't been Hitler it would have been another leader, maybe french or british.  The war would have happened, and quiet probably at roughly the same time period.
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: 05-Sep-2008 at 11:12
It's true that Germany could continue arming after Munich. However, the big difference between the two countries in 1937-8 was that the Germans were far in advance and Britain was barely ready. Yet by 1939 Britain had almost equalled Germany in aircraft production, for instance, and by 1940 was already producing 50% more than Germany.
 
In the aftermath of Munich Britain laid down 5 new battleships, 5 aircraft carriers and 23 cruisers along with smaller ships. That helped guarantee British superiority at sea when the war finally broke out, but ships take time to build. (Before Munish Germany's Scharnhorst class battleships and the Deutschland 'pocket' battleships had already been launched, and Bismark wasn't far behind.)
 
In 1937 Chamberlain boosted taxes on corporations to pay for rearmament and introduced the 'rationalisation' programme under which the government bought up old factories and razed them to enable building new ones.
 
As a result, as wikipedia has it:
Quote
By 1938, Britain was in the best position for rearmament, and thanks to this policy Britain had the most efficient factories in the world with the newest technology. This meant that Britain was able to produce the best weaponry quickly, and they had the best technology available.
 
So the groundwork had ben laid by Munich but there was still much to do. Democracies sadly move slowly, whereas dictatorships move fast.
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork
Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.
Back to Top
Choranzanus View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 03-Apr-2007
Location: Czech Republic
Status: Offline
Points: 6
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Choranzanus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04-Sep-2008 at 22:05
Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

How do you get that? Getting into the American Revolution, and letting the Americans get French, Spanish and Dutch allies ranks quite a bit higher.
 
Actually Munich was a diplomatic success, since it staved off war long enough for Britain to get mobilised properly. If Chamberlain had NOT used the time to boost up war production, THAT might have been a disaster. But he did - and even increased taxes specifically to pay for it.
For details read some of the erlier posts in this thread. It would save us all some time and effort answering the same questions all over again.

And now we are finally getting into the crux of the matter: The Munich Agreement.
And not too surprisingly what you say about it is simply not true. You apparently miss so basic a fact that when you prepare to "mobilise properly" your opponent is not sitting around doing nothing. I guess Germans got delayed by seizing all that military hardware, or perhaps mobilising troops from Sudetenland?

It is sheer idiocy to think that Britain gained anything from Munich agreement. Yes, "sheer idiocy", I said it.
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: 04-Sep-2008 at 19:30
Originally posted by Choranzanus Choranzanus wrote:


Originally posted by 02bburco 02bburco wrote:


3. Britian had a network of spies and would have no full well Hitler was strengthening the armed forces, combined with his bleifs it does take a genuis to figure out his intentions.

How is this not wishful thinking? Britain commited the greatest diplomatic disaster in entire history.
How do you get that? Getting into the American Revolution, and letting the Americans get French, Spanish and Dutch allies ranks quite a bit higher.
 
Actually Munich was a diplomatic success, since it staved off war long enough for Britain to get mobilised properly. If Chamberlain had NOT used the time to boost up war production, THAT might have been a disaster. But he did - and even increased taxes specifically to pay for it.
For details read some of the erlier posts in this thread. It would save us all some time and effort answering the same questions all over again.
Quote
If they were so great informed then what the hell they were doing?
Originally posted by 02bburco 02bburco wrote:


Britian feared a revelution in russia for the same reasons it feared the french revelution, it was against the very things the UK study for i.e. ruling classes and class system were still very much in operation at the time, look and the background of the officers of WW2 to see what I mean.

So it is more like they feared revolution in Britain? In Russia any revolution could hardly make it worse.
That's silly. Or at least a misreading. People in Britain didn't fear another revoluition in the USSR, they feared the consequences of the 1917 one. I would have thought that was obvious: after all even you seem to have realised that he wasn't referring to another French revolution.


Edited by gcle2003 - 04-Sep-2008 at 19:31
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork
Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.
Back to Top
Choranzanus View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 03-Apr-2007
Location: Czech Republic
Status: Offline
Points: 6
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Choranzanus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04-Sep-2008 at 19:07

Originally posted by 02bburco 02bburco wrote:


3. Britian had a network of spies and would have no full well Hitler was strengthening the armed forces, combined with his bleifs it does take a genuis to figure out his intentions.

How is this not wishful thinking? Britain commited the greatest diplomatic disaster in entire history. If they were so great informed then what the hell they were doing?
Originally posted by 02bburco 02bburco wrote:


Britian feared a revelution in russia for the same reasons it feared the french revelution, it was against the very things the UK study for i.e. ruling classes and class system were still very much in operation at the time, look and the background of the officers of WW2 to see what I mean.

So it is more like they feared revolution in Britain? In Russia any revolution could hardly make it worse.
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: 04-Sep-2008 at 19:03
Originally posted by Choranzanus Choranzanus wrote:

Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

Originally posted by Choranzanus Choranzanus wrote:

Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

Somehow I missed this. I accept that the quotes from Mao are new material and therefore not repetitive. However, I think we can safely reagrd Mao as an example of a Communist propagandist. And that Kissinger 'didn't blame Stalin' for the Soviet German alliance is hardly impressive either. I don't suppose he would blame Hitler for it either since, in Kissinger's own words: "He gained himself essential time".
 
No-one says Stalin didn't 'gain time' from the pact, simply that that pact was a far grosser example of appeasement, coupled with cynical pursuit of national objectives, than anything Chamberlain or the French were guilty of.
 

Well, it doesnt really look like that from here.
Try looking at it from Warsaw. Or Riga. Or even Helsinki.

And your point?
I'm sorry, I thought you'd be well enough informed to get the point, so I didn't spell it out. My mistake.
 
The point is that Poland, Latvia, Lithuanis, Estonia, Finland and even Romania were the countries that Stalin and Hitler agreed to carve up between them. There was no way Stalin could have got help with this from France and Britain: that was his price for alliance with Germany.
 
When  you said 'it doesn't really look like that from here' I assumed you meant from the Czech republic. I can see that a Czech's feelings about the whole affair would differ from a Pole's.
Quote
Just because Stalin and Hitler were evil doesnt make Chamberlain saint.
Of course not, but that's irrelevant. Whatever Chamberlain was, he would not have agreed to the USSR taking over half Poland and the other territories involved in 1939-40, as the Germans did. The Munich appeasement pales in comparison with that.
 
Granted the outcome post 1945 was terrible for the eastern European countries, but there certainly wasn't anything Chamberlain could do about it. And at least Greece and Austria were saved from the Red Army.
Quote
Quote
You have to ask yourself a question why Stalin was willing to wage war with allies against Germany and then suddenly changed his mind. Probably he realized that he would bleed and French and Britain would do nothing. In the words of Kissinger "you cant blame him".
Probabyl he realised that France and Britain would do nothing to help him take over the Baltics and parts of Poland, Finland and Rumania, whereas Hitler would co-operate.

 
 
I thought that made my original point crystal clear. Apparently not.


Edited by gcle2003 - 04-Sep-2008 at 19:04
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork
Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.
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: 04-Sep-2008 at 18:52
Originally posted by Choranzanus Choranzanus wrote:

Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

Originally posted by Choranzanus Choranzanus wrote:

Out of curiosity...
Anybody read this book?
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0853459991/ref=cm_cr_pr_product_top
A retired professor of computer science, a 'professor of history' at a correspondence school... and Christopher Hitchens? Are you kidding?

 

I take it as "no"....
Why would anyone bother? We've seen all the Quigley nonsense ad nauseam.
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork
Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.
Back to Top
Choranzanus View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 03-Apr-2007
Location: Czech Republic
Status: Offline
Points: 6
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Choranzanus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04-Sep-2008 at 18:40
Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

Originally posted by Choranzanus Choranzanus wrote:

Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

Somehow I missed this. I accept that the quotes from Mao are new material and therefore not repetitive. However, I think we can safely reagrd Mao as an example of a Communist propagandist. And that Kissinger 'didn't blame Stalin' for the Soviet German alliance is hardly impressive either. I don't suppose he would blame Hitler for it either since, in Kissinger's own words: "He gained himself essential time".
 
No-one says Stalin didn't 'gain time' from the pact, simply that that pact was a far grosser example of appeasement, coupled with cynical pursuit of national objectives, than anything Chamberlain or the French were guilty of.
 

Well, it doesnt really look like that from here.
Try looking at it from Warsaw. Or Riga. Or even Helsinki.

And your point?

Just because Stalin and Hitler were evil doesnt make Chamberlain saint.
Quote

Quote
You have to ask yourself a question why Stalin was willing to wage war with allies against Germany and then suddenly changed his mind. Probably he realized that he would bleed and French and Britain would do nothing. In the words of Kissinger "you cant blame him".
Probabyl he realised that France and Britain would do nothing to help him take over the Baltics and parts of Poland, Finland and Rumania, whereas Hitler would co-operate.



Edited by Choranzanus - 04-Sep-2008 at 18:43
Back to Top
Choranzanus View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 03-Apr-2007
Location: Czech Republic
Status: Offline
Points: 6
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Choranzanus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04-Sep-2008 at 18:16
Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

Originally posted by Choranzanus Choranzanus wrote:

Out of curiosity...
Anybody read this book?
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0853459991/ref=cm_cr_pr_product_top
A retired professor of computer science, a 'professor of history' at a correspondence school... and Christopher Hitchens? Are you kidding?

 

I take it as "no"....
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: 04-Sep-2008 at 12:41
1. Yes I am sure that Britian would prefer any war not to involve them but I am also equally sure they also wanted no war at all otherwise why bother with all the negotiations to try and apease germany, which alienated the UK from other countries why not just say go to hell germany and let them start a war, they didnt because it would have effected them no matter who the oposing sides were
 
2. A proxy war is completly different to a war in one of the two sides countries which wo7ld have far greater implications hence why both sides wanted the pact they didnt mind fighting for beliefs on someone elses terretory but didnt want the damage and distruction of a fuill on war on there only teretory i.e. the theory vietamise plans were piloited by russians.
 
3. Britian had a network of spies and would have no full well Hitler was strengthening the armed forces, combined with his bleifs it does take a genuis to figure out his intentions.
 
Britian feared a revelution in russia for the same reasons it feared the french revelution, it was against the very things the UK study for i.e. ruling classes and class system were still very much in operation at the time, look and the background of the officers of WW2 to see what I mean.
 
Finally i would apricialte you not describe a post of mine or anyone eleses as historical fiction or wishful thinking, this is not how to challenge someones ideas


Edited by 02bburco - 04-Sep-2008 at 12:48
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: 04-Sep-2008 at 11:07
Originally posted by Choranzanus Choranzanus wrote:

Out of curiosity...
Anybody read this book?
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0853459991/ref=cm_cr_pr_product_top
A retired professor of computer science, a 'professor of history' at a correspondence school... and Christopher Hitchens? Are you kidding?

 
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork
Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.
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: 04-Sep-2008 at 11:02
Originally posted by Choranzanus Choranzanus wrote:

Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

Somehow I missed this. I accept that the quotes from Mao are new material and therefore not repetitive. However, I think we can safely reagrd Mao as an example of a Communist propagandist. And that Kissinger 'didn't blame Stalin' for the Soviet German alliance is hardly impressive either. I don't suppose he would blame Hitler for it either since, in Kissinger's own words: "He gained himself essential time".
 
No-one says Stalin didn't 'gain time' from the pact, simply that that pact was a far grosser example of appeasement, coupled with cynical pursuit of national objectives, than anything Chamberlain or the French were guilty of.
 

Well, it doesnt really look like that from here.
Try looking at it from Warsaw. Or Riga. Or even Helsinki.
Quote
You have to ask yourself a question why Stalin was willing to wage war with allies against Germany and then suddenly changed his mind. Probably he realized that he would bleed and French and Britain would do nothing. In the words of Kissinger "you cant blame him".
Probabyl he realised that France and Britain would do nothing to help him take over the Baltics and parts of Poland, Finland and Rumania, whereas Hitler would co-operate.
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork
Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.
Back to Top
Choranzanus View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 03-Apr-2007
Location: Czech Republic
Status: Offline
Points: 6
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Choranzanus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04-Sep-2008 at 00:53
Out of curiosity...
Anybody read this book?
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0853459991/ref=cm_cr_pr_product_top
And this?

Back to Top
scottmanning View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard


Joined: 10-Jul-2006
Location: Philadelphia
Status: Offline
Points: 0
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote scottmanning Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03-Sep-2008 at 21:22
Originally posted by Choranzanus Choranzanus wrote:

I dont know much about Milner group or conspiracy theory, but the description of Munich events in Quigley is quite acurate.

Now I read on wikipedia that:
"In recent years, a revisionist school of history has emerged to challenge many assumptions about appeasement, arguing that it was a reasonable policy given the limitations of British arms available, the scattering of British forces across the world, and the reluctance of Dominion governments to go to war."
If there is any truth in there and this is accepted as scolarly research then it probably warrants discounting all British sources out of hand.

Pat Buchanan and Nicholson Baker do NOT represent scholarly research. Right now, they're the only ones who I have seen push this opinion. I'm not saying that should somehow discount it, but right now, they are the forefront of the research. It's shoddy research to say the least.

In order to prove their opinions, it requires a LOT of British sources, so discounting them is not the appropriate response.

The scholarly version was pushed by A. J. P. Taylor who argued that the concept of appeasement was not something unique to the British politicians in power, but instead a commonplace thing in Europe.
Back to Top
Choranzanus View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 03-Apr-2007
Location: Czech Republic
Status: Offline
Points: 6
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Choranzanus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03-Sep-2008 at 21:01
Originally posted by red clay red clay wrote:

Originally posted by Choranzanus Choranzanus wrote:


Wow, you people live in some denial...
 
How so sir, how so.   And I am asking Choranzanus this, not bankotsu.  I've seen everything he has to say 10 times or more.  Repetition doesn't improve accuracy.

I dont know much about Milner group or conspiracy theory, but the description of Munich events in Quigley is quite acurate.

Now I read on wikipedia that:
"In recent years, a revisionist school of history has emerged to challenge many assumptions about appeasement, arguing that it was a reasonable policy given the limitations of British arms available, the scattering of British forces across the world, and the reluctance of Dominion governments to go to war."
If there is any truth in there and this is accepted as scolarly research then it probably warrants discounting all British sources out of hand.
Back to Top
Choranzanus View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 03-Apr-2007
Location: Czech Republic
Status: Offline
Points: 6
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Choranzanus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03-Sep-2008 at 20:43
Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

Somehow I missed this. I accept that the quotes from Mao are new material and therefore not repetitive. However, I think we can safely reagrd Mao as an example of a Communist propagandist. And that Kissinger 'didn't blame Stalin' for the Soviet German alliance is hardly impressive either. I don't suppose he would blame Hitler for it either since, in Kissinger's own words: "He gained himself essential time".
 
No-one says Stalin didn't 'gain time' from the pact, simply that that pact was a far grosser example of appeasement, coupled with cynical pursuit of national objectives, than anything Chamberlain or the French were guilty of.
 

Well, it doesnt really look like that from here.

You have to ask yourself a question why Stalin was willing to wage war with allies against Germany and then suddenly changed his mind. Probably he realized that he would bleed and French and Britain would do nothing. In the words of Kissinger "you cant blame him".
Back to Top
Choranzanus View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 03-Apr-2007
Location: Czech Republic
Status: Offline
Points: 6
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Choranzanus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03-Sep-2008 at 20:14
Originally posted by 02bburco 02bburco wrote:

good decision gcle but ill have a go at starting something
 
discuss......
 
1. the UK pursued a policy of apeasemt becaus it did not want any war, the majority of the policins at th table had seen or been part of WW1 which had been described as the war to end all wars casualities on a massve scale as wepons technology eceded the crrect tactics, 50 year old tactics against ctting edge wepoanry i.e. mechience gun and pioson gass. and in respons to the idea the UK wanted a german russia war, this was not thecase because it is not in human nature to want death on that scale despite what anyone says. but in addition to this WW1 had cuased reveluton in Russia and politicans arscared by thi more than anything else i.e the removal of the establis sical order which they rely n for there positions, and with russia being such a power a revelution could have placed it in the wrong hands, which could endanger the UK moeover a war would disrupt trade which was the life blood of the economy and after WW1 which nearlybankruoted the countries concerned they would want no repeat. (trade would sufferregardless of the UKs involvment)
 
2. with one of the germans main demands being living space it is logical to suggest they will sek to push thier own borders outwards into the rest of Europe rather than go directly to russia,as by the time russia was invaded it was thenext logical step, at this time it was not so therefore hoping o direct the war towards russia was never plausable.
 
3. they knew hitler was going down the road to war deliberatly, he wanted war to avenge the loss of WW1 in which he faught and the trety of versilis the polices of apeaement was one last desperate attemp to avoid a world war and all the humanitarian and economic osts this would intail why else would countrys be willing to sacrifice other countries withouttelling them save to prevent somethin of this scale?
 
in conclusion policy of appeasement wasnt try to cuase war in russia because it was at thetime an ilogical stepp for both parties, germay wanted living space and the UK feared another russian revelution. it was a desperate attempt to stop a war that everyone could see coming     


This, like Peteratwars earlier post is poster child for wishful thinking. You WISH it was this way, but it doesnt have much to do with historical reality.

1. Just formulate it as a choice of war between Britain and Germany versus war between Germany and USSR. Suddenly British politicians want war and mass carnage like you would not believe.

2. Everyone knows that Communists and Fascists are sworn enemies. USSR and Germany already fought a proxy war in Spain. They already were at war.

3. You cannot simultaneously claim that Britain knew what was Hitlers intentions and signed (actually created) Munich. Munich treaty served absolutely no useful purpose, it greatly strengthened Germany and weakened allies. Without it, Germany could have been defeated easily.

I do not understand why Britain would fear another Russian revolution, that doesnt make sense.
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: 28-Aug-2008 at 11:35
good decision gcle but ill have a go at starting something
 
discuss......
 
1. the UK pursued a policy of apeasemt becaus it did not want any war, the majority of the policins at th table had seen or been part of WW1 which had been described as the war to end all wars casualities on a massve scale as wepons technology eceded the crrect tactics, 50 year old tactics against ctting edge wepoanry i.e. mechience gun and pioson gass. and in respons to the idea the UK wanted a german russia war, this was not thecase because it is not in human nature to want death on that scale despite what anyone says. but in addition to this WW1 had cuased reveluton in Russia and politicans arscared by thi more than anything else i.e the removal of the establis sical order which they rely n for there positions, and with russia being such a power a revelution could have placed it in the wrong hands, which could endanger the UK moeover a war would disrupt trade which was the life blood of the economy and after WW1 which nearlybankruoted the countries concerned they would want no repeat. (trade would sufferregardless of the UKs involvment)
 
2. with one of the germans main demands being living space it is logical to suggest they will sek to push thier own borders outwards into the rest of Europe rather than go directly to russia,as by the time russia was invaded it was thenext logical step, at this time it was not so therefore hoping o direct the war towards russia was never plausable.
 
3. they knew hitler was going down the road to war deliberatly, he wanted war to avenge the loss of WW1 in which he faught and the trety of versilis the polices of apeaement was one last desperate attemp to avoid a world war and all the humanitarian and economic osts this would intail why else would countrys be willing to sacrifice other countries withouttelling them save to prevent somethin of this scale?
 
in conclusion policy of appeasement wasnt try to cuase war in russia because it was at thetime an ilogical stepp for both parties, germay wanted living space and the UK feared another russian revelution. it was a desperate attempt to stop a war that everyone could see coming     
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  123 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 0.094 seconds.