How they could of prevented WWII.

[Carbine23]

I totally disagree. They had a right to make the treaty harsh. The Germans started a massive world war and destroyed many cities in the effected countries.

The German's didn't start WW1, they were just backing up their allies the Austro-Hungarians. A bunch of factors in Europe were the cause of WW1 but the assassination of Franz Ferdinand was the main catalyst

[K^2]

 

How they could of[...]

And that's the place I stopped reading, because it became clear that you aren't the kind of person who'd bother to research the topic before making claims about it.

[lil weasel]

 

Why didn't [...] Italy pay anything

To my knowledge Italy was an Ally in the Great War.

 

The Great War Reparations

Second World War Reparations

 

 

[Sanjeem]

Well, at the time remember that after the tragedies of WW1 nobody really wanted another war, especially that soon after the first, not to mention that France and British armies had been torn apart. I think roughly 2/3rds of the French army after WW1 were either killed or wounded. So a war that soon after would probably be impossible, however many historians think other paths should have been taken and that appeasement was not the best of moves.

 

Besides Hitler did most of this in secret, he made no official announcements that he was going to rebuild the German army and break other countless of rules related and restricted by the Treaty of Versailles. So by the time he did announce he was building a new army, a lot of it had already been done whilst the British and French armies were still crippled and hadn't been building nearly as fast as the Germans.

 

@Karzy6 : Italy was never targeted by the Treaty of Versailles, also Mussolini wasn't allied with Nazi Germany at this time in History. The Italian prime minister was actually part of the "Big four" even though they are less relevant so most people just know of "The Big three". France, Britain and US.

Edited April 29, 2012 by Sanjeem

[Dingdongs]

Italy switched sides in WWI.

 

India wasn't part of the war because they didn't exist. It was a colony and therefore Indian troops were sent to battle under the British Imperial flag.

 

The US was involved in the peace process, actually. The US failed to ratify the Treaty of Versailles due to Article X.

 

What exactly is the point of this??

[lil weasel]

In the years PRIOR to the Great War Italy had sided with Germany and Austria-Hungary in the Triple Alliance.

Italy should have joined in the with those two nations when war broke out in August 1914. Italy did not.

 

On April 26th 1915, Italy came into the war on the side of the Triple Entente – Britain, France and Russia.

Edited April 29, 2012 by lil weasel

[OchyGTA]

But Germany didn't cause the the First World War. In fact they weren't at fault more than any other country. Europe was a tinderbox just waiting to be lit, you can hardly blame Germany. Britain and Germany were in a huge arms race, which led to other countries to increase their military spending and created a situation where war was inevitable especially with the alliances and pacts which pretty much guaranteed a pan-European war. The Germans had such tough sanctions imposed because they were the richest, largest and most powerful of the triple alliance and so they were the most obvious target.

 

Like others have said nobody wanted a war and so there was a policy of appeasement towards Hitler. It was hoped that if they made concessions and allowed Hitler to basically have his way, then conflict could be avoided.

This post pretty much sums everything up. It's frankly ignorant in my view for us to look back on it and say the leaders were wrong to appease Hitler. What would you have done in their shoes? Probably the same thing. Even Churchill was wary about going to war. He considered further appeasement of Hitler by way of giving Germany some British African colonies but decided against it.

Whilst that may be true, it is interesting to discuss what may have happened had the British and French clamped down on Hitler's expansionist policies. When Hitler sent troops into the Rhineland in 1936, he ordered his Generals to turn back if they faced any French or British resistance. Whilst I believe a Second World War was inevitable, had the French and British stopped any aggressive German behaviour, it may have been a much shorter lived conflict.

To truly understand why both World Wars started, I think you have to be European. The ethnic conflicts in Eastern Europe that really ignited the First World War have ravaged that part of the continent for centuries and the ties between The British, German and Russian royal families pre-1920 of course. You can't say that WW2 could have been avoided had Britain and France stopped any re-militarization by Germany because in the end, the Treaty of Versailles was just a piece of paper that was dictated mainly by an American.

 

[Dingdongs]

In the years PRIOR to the Great War Italy had sided with Germany and Austria-Hungary in the Triple Alliance.

Italy should have joined in the with those two nations when war broke out in August 1914. Italy did not.

 

On April 26th 1915, Italy came into the war on the side of the Triple Entente – Britain, France and Russia.

The exact date doesn't matter. Italy was allied with the Germans and Austro-Hungarians and then switched sides. That was massive dishonor for Italy throughout the entire world. It's part of the reason Mussolini was able to come to power.

 

 

Whilst that may be true, it is interesting to discuss what may have happened had the British and French clamped down on Hitler's expansionist policies. When Hitler sent troops into the Rhineland in 1936, he ordered his Generals to turn back if they faced any French or British resistance. Whilst I believe a Second World War was inevitable, had the French and British stopped any aggressive German behaviour, it may have been a much shorter lived conflict.

 

You're forgetting though that the British and French alone could not beat Hitler. Had there not been a two front war, Hitler would have probably eventually taken England and likely made peace with the US. Could they have beaten him in 36? Probably. But by 38 and 39, they hadn't a chance to beat him in a ground war in Europe.

 

To truly understand why both World Wars started, I think you have to be European. The ethnic conflicts in Eastern Europe that really ignited the First World War have ravaged that part of the continent for centuries and the ties between The British, German and Russian royal families pre-1920 of course. You can't say that WW2 could have been avoided had Britain and France stopped any re-militarization by Germany because in the end, the Treaty of Versailles was just a piece of paper that was dictated mainly by an American.

 

That's not true. The final product was a very watered down version of what Wilson wanted, and actually, the ideas propagated by Clemenceau and Lloyd George were even more harsh to Germany, non-respecting of ethnic borders and self determination than the final product.

[GTA_stu]

Even if you prevent Germany from conquering all the land it did, I don't think you would prevent a large scale conflict between the major powers in Europe. The key policy for centuries was to maintain a balance of power on the European continent, and not allow any one country to dominate it. Throughout history as soon as a dominant country did appear the other countries and empires always sought to undermine that dominance, and primarily it would be the British who would lead those efforts. The Napoleonic wars are a prime example of this.

 

There was a huge amount of nationalism in countries all over Europe, and it meant that war on some level was unavoidable. If not for Germany it would have probably been the Soviets who took the expansionist reigns. You'd also still have the Japanese Empire in Asia constantly expanding and this would no doubt lead to conflict. So really it would only have pushed major conflict back a little bit or someone else would have filled Germany's boots.

[B Rob]

@ OchyGTA: The US Congress did not ratify the treaty or sign it.

[lil weasel]

@ OchyGTA: The US Congress did not ratify the treaty or sign it.

"Dictated by" doesn't mean signed by...

[B Rob]

@ OchyGTA: The US Congress did not ratify the treaty or sign it.

"Dictated by" doesn't mean signed by...

Sure the US had a say in it but France and Britain also had some input.

[Dingdongs]

@ OchyGTA: The US Congress did not ratify the treaty or sign it.

"Dictated by" doesn't mean signed by...

Sure the US had a say in it but France and Britain also had some input.

They didn't have "some" input, they had all of the input. What you said originally was correct. Wilson's ideas were mostly laughed out of the conference, and only a few of his proposals made it to the end, namely the League.

[OchyGTA]

@ OchyGTA: The US Congress did not ratify the treaty or sign it.

"Dictated by" doesn't mean signed by...

Sure the US had a say in it but France and Britain also had some input.

They didn't have "some" input, they had all of the input. What you said originally was correct. Wilson's ideas were mostly laughed out of the conference, and only a few of his proposals made it to the end, namely the League.

Yes well perhaps in terms of reparations and military restrictions but with regards to the re-drawing of Germany's borders (as well as Eastern Europe and the Baltic), Woodrow Wilson was heavily involved. What's more, he supported the idea of turning over Germany's colonies to France and Britain respectively.

[GOUSN1776]

If Neville Chamberlain had a brain and balls he would've ended it before it started. Instead he sat idly by while Hitler grew Germany's military (his excuse to Chamberlain was for defense) and took over countries (his excuse was that they were already part of Germany before, so they are rightfully mine). As with most people, unfortunately, Chamberlain was reactive instead of proactive and waited until Germany invaded Poland to do anything. By then it was too late & Chamberlain went out while Churchill went in.

[lil weasel]

It's all so easy to say, after the fact.

 

[Creed Bratton]

@GTAvanja

 

So, Jamica is under Russian control? Is that a good or bad thing?

Underwater cities wasn't a good enough hint?

[GOUSN1776]

As far as the Pacific theater goes, if Japan hadn't messed with our (USA) trade in China we wouldn't have put an embargo on them in which case the Japanese would've never bombed Pearl Harbor.

 

Once they bombed Pearl Harbor, we (Americans) got up-in-arms and went ape sh*t on them.

[OchyGTA]

If Neville Chamberlain had a brain and balls he would've ended it before it started. Instead he sat idly by while Hitler grew Germany's military (his excuse to Chamberlain was for defense) and took over countries (his excuse was that they were already part of Germany before, so they are rightfully mine). As with most people, unfortunately, Chamberlain was reactive instead of proactive and waited until Germany invaded Poland to do anything. By then it was too late & Chamberlain went out while Churchill went in.

Well this kind of proves my point that a non-European doesn't fully understand. Chamberlain as with the rest of Europe had no intention of starting another war with Germany and at the time, Hitler's actions and excuses were perfectly reasonable. Its easy to criticise him now but most politicians including Churchill would have done exactly the same at the time.

France and Britain had already been re-arming so to allow Germany seemed only fair; it was seen that the Germans had legitimate claims to the Sudetenland and re-militarization the Rhineland.

[sivispacem]

If Neville Chamberlain had a brain and balls he would've ended it before it started. Instead he sat idly by while Hitler grew Germany's military (his excuse to Chamberlain was for defense) and took over countries (his excuse was that they were already part of Germany before, so they are rightfully mine). As with most people, unfortunately, Chamberlain was reactive instead of proactive and waited until Germany invaded Poland to do anything. By then it was too late & Chamberlain went out while Churchill went in.

Well this kind of proves my point that a non-European doesn't fully understand. Chamberlain as with the rest of Europe had no intention of starting another war with Germany and at the time, Hitler's actions and excuses were perfectly reasonable. Its easy to criticise him now but most politicians including Churchill would have done exactly the same at the time.

France and Britain had already been re-arming so to allow Germany seemed only fair; it was seen that the Germans had legitimate claims to the Sudetenland and re-militarization the Rhineland.

Indeed. Compare and contrast the actions of, say, Russia in neighbouring nations and provinces today (Belarus, Dagestan, Chechnya, Georgia and Ossetia, Estonia et al) with the Appeasment period. Some very interesting similarities both in actions committed by a powerful aggressor state and the international reaction to them.

[GOUSN1776]

If Neville Chamberlain had a brain and balls he would've ended it before it started. Instead he sat idly by while Hitler grew Germany's military (his excuse to Chamberlain was for defense) and took over countries (his excuse was that they were already part of Germany before, so they are rightfully mine). As with most people, unfortunately, Chamberlain was reactive instead of proactive and waited until Germany invaded Poland to do anything. By then it was too late & Chamberlain went out while Churchill went in.

Well this kind of proves my point that a non-European doesn't fully understand. Chamberlain as with the rest of Europe had no intention of starting another war with Germany and at the time, Hitler's actions and excuses were perfectly reasonable. Its easy to criticise him now but most politicians including Churchill would have done exactly the same at the time.

France and Britain had already been re-arming so to allow Germany seemed only fair; it was seen that the Germans had legitimate claims to the Sudetenland and re-militarization the Rhineland.

Indeed. Compare and contrast the actions of, say, Russia in neighbouring nations and provinces today (Belarus, Dagestan, Chechnya, Georgia and Ossetia, Estonia et al) with the Appeasment period. Some very interesting similarities both in actions committed by a powerful aggressor state and the international reaction to them.

I see both of yours points. I was just stating how it could've been prevented even if others would've done the same.

[sivispacem]

Yes, but you also alledge that it's a result of Chamberlain's failure, not of an overriding desire of state actors to avoid military confrontation with economically or strategically powerful adversaries which prevails to this day and always has.

[GOUSN1776]

Economically, Germany may have been powerful however militarily they were not immediately following WWI. (Technically no one was too powerful, economically, as the Great Depression was still ongoing). If Chamberlain had seen the sudden and drastic changes in Germany's actions he would've possibly stopped them. Instead he accepted excuse after excuse.

 

This is not to say that I place the blame on anyone. Simply, if more strict sanctions and regulations with the proper enforcement of them were carried out in the aftermath of WWI then WWII more than likely would've never happened. Unfortunately, as with many historic events, no one acts until they are immediately affected.

[sivispacem]

Economically, Germany may have been powerful however militarily they were not immediately following WWI. (Technically no one was too powerful, economically, as the Great Depression was still ongoing). If Chamberlain had seen the sudden and drastic changes in Germany's actions he would've possibly stopped them. Instead he accepted excuse after excuse.

Again, I must emphasise my point. Your comments suggest that he acted in an irrational way; history suggests otherwise. And economic power- or, for that matter, any other kind of "soft" power- is very easy to translate into "hard" power. Remember the "swords into ploughshares" idea? Well, it works both ways. The simple fact of the matter was that until the mid-late 1930s there was no "sudden and drastic" change in Germany's actions, yet since the middle of the 1920s Germany had basically been given free grace to re-arm covertly to counterbalance the threat of the Soviet Union. By the time Chamberlain was Prime Minister, it was rather too late. Remember, the Rhineland re-militarisation- which is commonly seen as the defining moment in the rise of the Third Reich, happened almost a year before he became Prime Minister.

[El Dildo]

lol... this is quite an important debate you guys are having, innit?

 

surely - once you figure out who is right - we can use the information to help people who are still living in Poland in 1910

[Dingdongs]

It's all so easy to say, after the fact.

This pretty much sums up the topic. This topic, in my view, is no different than saying that some guy who was drinking at a bar with Hitler in 1920 ought to have killed the future fuhrer.

[lil weasel]

If Mister Hitler was to be offed, I am sure someone of equal temperament would easily have replaced him. It (the Party) did start as a workers revolt of sorts. The sentiment regarding Gypsy, Homosexual, and Jews wasn't all that unknown.

[GOUSN1776]

 

Remember, the Rhineland re-militarisation- which is commonly seen as the defining moment in the rise of the Third Reich, happened almost a year before he became Prime Minister.

I didn't know this, thank you for informing me. Going by what you stated I can now infer that WWII would've inevitably happened. You win this debate.