View Full Version : Was WW2 in Europe Justified?
PanzerJaeger
08-26-2005, 00:58
After a loss in WW1, Germany had the Treaty of Versailles forced upon them. In this treaty, Germany was made to take full responsibility for WW1, pay virtually never-ending reparations to many European nations(mostly France), and cede land that was German - including Prussia - to several nations. Also, Germany was restricted from having anything resembling a strong military.
It was clear through the writings and opinions of the leaders of the time that Germany was to be made weak for an indefinate amount of time.
Germany was essentially punished for fulfilling her alliance obligations just as France, Russia, and Britain had done.
To me, this justifies the attack on Poland, which would not cede areas that had a majority German populace such as Prussia that were unfairly given to them. The overly harsh punishment of Germany also justifies the crushing of France and the British in France, as they were the major enforcers of the unfair treatment of post-war Germany.
Finally to Russia. After the revolution the victorious allies sent troops to fight the communist forces. After that failed, they maintained a strong anti-communist policy. It has always been the policy of the Western World to fight communism wherever it can. Was the war against Russia was any worse than the proxy wars of the Cold War?
This topic should be separated from the evils of Hitler and relates only to the foreign policy of the time. Was Germany entitled to attack nations that had a stated policy of keeping the country weak? How would you feel if your neighboring countries kept your country militarily and financially weak simply because your country lost a war it did not start? Was the response toward the Versailles enforcers justified after what they did to Germany?
Adrian II
08-26-2005, 01:03
This topic should be separated from the evils of Hitler and relates only to the foreign policy of the time. Was Germany entitled to attack nations that had a stated policy of keeping the country weak?Sure. Just separate the topic from the evils of the Soviet Union, colonialism, economic depression, the arms industry and the Spanish Flu and it all becomes crystal clear.
Strike For The South
08-26-2005, 01:07
Ah yes because two wrongs make a right and attacking nations because they did something unfair to you is completely justified :dizzy2: not to mention the Nazis didn't go to war to right the wrongs they wanted power and an aryan race so no they are still the aggressor and no amount of BS will ever change that
Adrian II
08-26-2005, 01:08
Ah yes because two wrongs make a right and attacking nations because they did something unfair to you is completely justified :dizzy2: not to mention the Nazis didn't go to war to right the wrongs they wanted power and an aryan race so no they are still the aggressor and no amount of BS will ever change thatI might as well erase my own post. Strike for the South indeed. :bow:
After a loss in WW1, Germany had the Treaty of Versailles forced upon them. In this treaty, Germany was made to take full responsibility for WW1, pay virtually never-ending reparations to many European nations(mostly France), and cede land that was German - including Prussia - to several nations. Also, Germany was restricted from having anything resembling a strong military.
True
It was clear through the writings and opinions of the leaders of the time that Germany was to be made weak for an indefinate amount of time.
Again True
Germany was essentially punished for fulfilling her alliance obligations just as France, Russia, and Britain had done.
Again true
To me, this justifies the attack on Poland, which would not cede areas that had a majority German populace such as Prussia that were unfairly given to them. The overly harsh punishment of Germany also justifies the crushing of France and the British in France, as they were the major enforcers of the unfair treatment of post-war Germany.
Wrong - Germany signed the Agreement that ended the war - they by treaty had to fulfil their obligations under it. Was it done to punish the Germans - you betcha - but Germany placed a willing signature on the document.
Finally to Russia. After the revolution the victorious allies sent troops to fight the communist forces. After that failed, they maintained a strong anti-communist policy. It has always been the policy of the Western World to fight communism wherever it can. Was the war against Russia was any worse than the proxy wars of the Cold War?
History shows that the German invasion of Russia was worse then the Proxy wars of the Cold War with one exception. However while Germany attacked Russia for many reasons - the systemic killing of civilians by execution because of their religion and race - ruined any legal and moral standing of the German invasion of Russia.
This topic should be separated from the evils of Hitler and relates only to the foreign policy of the time.
That has the smell of revisionist history I am afraid. You can not seperate the evils of Hilter's Regime from WW2 since alot of them happened in the conduct of the war. Hilter killed many civilians based upon religion or race - in his conquest of other nations. Yes conquest of others not for the return of German lands to Germany - if it was only about getting back German Land - the war would have never happened. Hilter had the allies on the ropes through posturing - Germany did not need to attack Poland to get Prussia back.
Was Germany entitled to attack nations that had a stated policy of keeping the country weak?
Only if those policies were in violation of an established treaty. Germany willing signed the armstice at the end of WW1 - so they were obligated to follow the treaty through its completion.
How would you feel if your neighboring countries kept your country militarily and financially weak simply because your country lost a war it did not start?
Hold on - Germany while didn't start the war - it was Austria and Russia. Germany chose to attack into France.
Was the response toward the Versailles enforcers justified after what they did to Germany?
No - Germany lost the war.
Ask yourself this question - was Iraq justified to ignore the ceasefire agreement in which they willing signed to end the first conflict?
or ask it this way. Was the United States justified in enforcing the ceasefire conditions imposed on Iraq - a ceasefire Iraq willing signed?
It will help clear up any thoughts about Germany being justified in attacking Poland.
Papewaio
08-26-2005, 01:14
If the war went long enough they would have been Justified in nuking every German city.
RabidGibbon
08-26-2005, 01:17
What did Czechoslovakia ever do to Germany? The Munich agreement seeded to Hitler all those areas of that country he demanded. A few months later he decided to invade the rest of that country.
IIRC Yugoslavia committed the hideous crime of saying to the germans "Where not your allies anymore."
For this they where invaded and introduced to Nazi Rule.
Greece of course provoked Nazi Germany at every chance it got and by refusing to give in to Italys purely aggressive demands for territory was just asking to be attacked and annexed by Germany.
Denmark and Norway too where notable aggressors in the second world war and truely deserved to be invaded.
And to add to all this, the only reason the British Empire entered the first world war was because Germany decided the best way to invade France was through Neutral Belgium. They also launched unrestricted submarine warfare (ie: We think your sailing to an allied port so where going to plug a torpeado or two in you)
Compared to the RN equivelant of we'll escort you into harbour and buy your cargo off you, and don't do it again.
Oh, and lets not forget that Austria-Hungary Invaded Serbia (and thus sparked off WW1) for reasons that were about as well founded as Michael Jacksons excuses for sleeping with small boys, and Germany decided to "defend" its allies by attacking everyone within range.
EDIT: WOW, in the time it took me to type this 4 other people have posted. Apologies for any repetition.
To me, this justifies the attack on Poland, which would not cede areas that had a majority German populace such as Prussia that were unfairly given to them. The overly harsh punishment of Germany also justifies the crushing of France and the British in France, as they were the major enforcers of the unfair treatment of post-war Germany.
I see...
Well, thank God for people like my old man who did not share your rather... unique, point of view, and were ready, willing, and able to go over there and kick Nazi ass all the way back to Berlin.
Proud to be a son of a WWII Canadian war veteran!
Devastatin Dave
08-26-2005, 01:23
Panzer, i hope that you are going to draw an anology to this because as of now, I'm not seeing where your are going here. ~:confused:
If you are actually making the arguement that Germany was justified with its agression, then I'm very dissappointed. ~:eek:
Papewaio
08-26-2005, 01:33
If Germany was justified then so why Saddam in invading Kuwait...
==== My editor in chief said to change it or get a new job :coffeenews: ===
Steppe Merc
08-26-2005, 01:38
Um, I agree with everyone else. I'm not a big fan of war, but when someone's main objective is taking over the world while commiting horrible atrocity's, that is pretty much all the justification is needed. I mean, if Germany had done nothing other than putting innocents in concentration camps, it may well be justified.
I mean, the Nazis were not nice.
Devastatin Dave
08-26-2005, 01:40
If Germany was justified then so why Saddam in invading Iraq...
Do you mean "If Germany was justified, then so was Saddam in invading Kuwaitt"? I didn't understand your meaning... ~:confused:
Kaiser of Arabia
08-26-2005, 01:46
Sort of...
While Germany did have the right to tell the Allied Powers to go **** a monkey for the treaty of versailles, the invasion and conquest of Poland really didn't need to happen.
Sort of...
While Germany did have the right to tell the Allied Powers to go **** a monkey for the treaty of versailles, the invasion and conquest of Poland really didn't need to happen.
Again think before you speak or type.
Why did Germany have the right to tell the allied powers to get bent - when Germany was a willing signature nation on the Treaty of Versailles?
Did Germany have the obligation it abide by a treaty even an unfair one?
Yes according to the Hague Convention of 1907 - any nation that signs a armitise (SP) or a ceasefire must fullfil the requirements of the treaty or the other warring nations may resume the conflict for thier non compliance with treaty.
sharrukin
08-26-2005, 01:58
Well, leaving aside the atrocities of the Nazi regime is a big request, however...
If the Germans ONLY intent was to reunite the German minorities of Poland and Czechoslovakia then there likely wouldn't have been a Second World War. They could have annexed the polish regions, the Sudetenland and installed a friendly polish government and withdrawn. The allies would have accepted peace after time as they had no great interest in war. The 'Phony War' illustrates this.
Hitler attacked Poland to take land from Poland that had never been German as he indicated in Mein Kampf. His intent was to sieze Lebensraum, or living room for the German people.
Papewaio
08-26-2005, 01:58
Do you mean "If Germany was justified, then so was Saddam in invading Kuwaitt"? I didn't understand your meaning... ~:confused:
Whoops... need more coffee.
sharrukin
08-26-2005, 02:02
Why did Germany have the right to tell the allied powers to get bent - when Germany was a willing signature nation on the Treaty of Versailles?
Did Germany have the obligation it abide by a treaty even an unfair one?
Did the occupied nations such as France, Greece, Norway, under Nazi rule have an obligation to come to Germany's aid due to imposed treaties? I recall some people talking about Collaboration and such things.
Kaiser of Arabia
08-26-2005, 02:06
Again think before you speak or type.
Why did Germany have the right to tell the allied powers to get bent - when Germany was a willing signature nation on the Treaty of Versailles?
Did Germany have the obligation it abide by a treaty even an unfair one?
Yes according to the Hague Convention of 1907 - any nation that signs a armitise (SP) or a ceasefire must fullfil the requirements of the treaty or the other warring nations may resume the conflict for thier non compliance with treaty.
Basically because the treaty of Versailles greatly effected every aspect of the average German's life in a negative way. People were starving in the streets and all. Although they did have the obligation, really, the treaty was total BS and if the Germans abided by it, no doubt they'd be part of France right now.
Also may I add that whilst the Monarchy of Germany signed the treaty, and I may be wrong, but wasn't the Weimar republic a different government and therefore not subject to the treaty? I really don't know, though.
Did the occupied nations such as France, Greece, Norway, under Nazi rule have an obligation to come to Germany's aid due to imposed treaties? I recall some people talking about Collaboration and such things.
You stated the difference in your question. Occupied and signing an imposed treaty significies force being applied. Germany knew it was going to lose WW1, and instead of fighting the war to its bloodly end - Germany chose to go with the Treaty.
Germany incurred the obligation to abide under another treaty in which Germany signed - called the Hague Treaty of 1907.
_Martyr_
08-26-2005, 02:10
Its not a matter of absolutes PJ. Not many would doubt that Germany was treated prertty terribly after Versailles. The treaty bound, humiliated, divided and disgraced the Germans in a way that would leave any nation with an extremely bitter taste in their mouth to say the least. But just because we can empathise with the plight of Germany post Versailles, it goes nowhere near granting Germany any sort of basis for invading most of Europe.
sharrukin
08-26-2005, 02:18
You stated the difference in your question. Occupied and signing an imposed treaty significies force being applied. Germany knew it was going to lose WW1, and instead of fighting the war to its bloodly end - Germany chose to go with the Treaty.
Germany incurred the obligation to abide under another treaty in which Germany signed - called the Hague Treaty of 1907.
France and all those other nations did the same thing. They signed a treaty rather than go on fighting. The Versaille treaty was imposed if any treaty ever has been.
World War II was more than justified.
Yes, of course it was. We were completely justified in going over there and kicking the snot out of the Nazis.
bmolsson
08-26-2005, 02:44
I believe that Europe had a problem to understand the difference between the new "democratic" era that the beginning of the 1900 actually meant. The old way of kings and emperor dividing land and people between each other as they like was over and the peace of WWI didn't just offend a spoiled royalty, but all the German people. This made it impossible to reconcile the people of Europe and WWII was a fact.
Here a note should be made, that US actually respected the German people after the defeat and I believe that the war efforts from US in WWII was rather marginal, while the rebuilding efforts of Germany saved Europe from a WWIII. (We leave the cold war out of this, since that was not so cleverly handled).
So bottom line, WWII was expected after WWI.......
Strike For The South
08-26-2005, 02:53
All sides were justified, whether morally or lawfully. The Germans had ample reason to lash out at the allies after the slave treaty of Versailles--they were only following their treaty obligations during world war I, after all. The allies were more than justified, as the Germans represented a real threat. And the USA was more than justified because without the UK, Russia, and France there would be nobody to pay us back for all the aid we'd been giving them.
The war wasnt about Versailles it was about power they german pepole were just more easily manipulated because of Versailles and btw all euro countries had hardships after ww1 so dont act like the nazis were in there own boat In the end the Germans wanted power and would stop at no costs no war for power is ever justified not matter how you think youve been wronged goverments shouldnt lash out because there toys have been taken
King of Atlantis
08-26-2005, 03:01
well, everything to be said, reall has
germany signed the treaty, thus they are not entitled to get it back by invasion.
You always seem to lighten the evils of Hitler, when in truth they are a vital element of WW2. This is one of the few wars i will ever see as good vs. evil, because it was exactly that. The german people werent evil, but they were brainwashed by one....
bmolsson
08-26-2005, 03:09
I must add one thing here. I do believe that Nazism is more than an evil Hitler brainwashing a people in need. As a European, I am ashamed over this chapter in Europe, but I also recognize that it's more than it can be blamed on one man. It was not only in Germany you found Nazi sympathisers. I strongly believe that Sweden was spared from Nazi Germany due to top Nazi supporters in the Swedish elite.
Nazism is a product of the European colonial history, expansionistic royals and a deep rooted believe that Europeans are better than everyone else. Even today, many people in Europe believe that they are better than people from other parts of the world. If world war would have ended differently, another nation would have been the birth place of Nazism. It was a last attempt to rise the belief in superior races and bloodlines on earth, and it failed......
King of Atlantis
08-26-2005, 03:11
your correct,i believe, which is why Germanies allies were called the axis of evil.....
France and all those other nations did the same thing. They signed a treaty rather than go on fighting. The Versaille treaty was imposed if any treaty ever has been.
The Treaty of Versaille was not imposed on Germany - Germany had a choice in the matter - continue fighting or sign the treaty.
Since I am at work - and about to go home I will make it short - with an edit and follow-up latter.
From Wikipedia -
Germany requested a cease-fire on October 3, 1918. When Wilhelm II ordered the German High Seas Fleet to sortie against the Entente's navies, they mutinied in Wilhelmshaven starting October 29, 1918.
and a little farther down
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WW1
Following the outbreak of the German Revolution, a Republic was proclaimed on November 9, marking the end of the German Empire. The Kaiser fled the next day to the Netherlands, which granted him political asylum. (See Weimar Republic for details.) On November 11 Germany signed in a railroad car at Compiègne, in France, an armistice with the Entente. On the eleventh day of the eleventh month at the eleventh hour it was official, the war was over.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vichy_France
Vichy France was established after the country had surrendered to Germany in 1940 (see also: World War II). It takes its name from the government's capital in Vichy, south-east of Paris near Clermont-Ferrand.
Notice the difference in just this one source of the languaged used to identify the signing of the two treaties.
I might not be explaining it right for you to understand the concept - but WW1 ended because the Germans decided not to fight until complete defeat - nor was Germany actually fully invaded by the Allies during WW1. Germany captured Paris in WW2, and forced the surrender of the French to thier terms.
First of all the The Treaty of Versailles was completely bogus because the Germans though that they were going to go back to the way that they were before WWI but it didn't happen like that and thats goes into all the stipulations on the Treaty that most of us already named or know and thats why the Americans didn't sign the Treaty because they knew it would end up starting another war.
So I think that the war was justified but not what Hitler did to the Jews but the war was justified.
~:cheers: ~:cheers:
sharrukin
08-26-2005, 03:53
The treaty of Versaille might justify a different war, but it doesn't justify World War two.
Shaka_Khan
08-26-2005, 04:13
...The overly harsh punishment of Germany also justifies the crushing of France and the British in France, as they were the major enforcers of the unfair treatment of post-war Germany...
That's shocking to hear from a French-Canadian. ~:eek:
I agree that the Treaty of Versailles didn't help in preventing a war. Europe would've been better off without WWII.
Seamus Fermanagh
08-26-2005, 04:16
The treaty of Versaille might justify a different war, but it doesn't justify World War two.
Nicely phrased.
1. Was the Treaty of Versailles ridiculously harsh and purposefully humiliating?
Yes. Any post war treaty that requires indemnities to be paid for each chicken killed in the conflict is being purposefully nasty.
2. Why did Germany sign it? and why did Austria-Hungary when it was literally disolving their country?
They were losing. Though Germany was never counter-invaded and little of Germany or AH was bombed or shelled, their economies, agro-industries and manpower reserves were virtually exhausted. Even with the dissolution of Tsarist Russia, Germany fell a bit short of the manpower needed to win. With the effective arrival of American troops in the Summer of 1918, it was a done deal. They signed because they'd been beaten. Winners do get to impose terms and for France it was payback for 1870/71.
3. Did this Treaty justify war by Germany?
Possibly. A repudiation of the treaty and a resumption of conflict with those who imposed the treaty might be morally justifiable.
4. Was German re-armament a Nazi program?
Not entirely. Efforts to secure training in armored warfare and air combat were going on under the Weimar government for several years before Hitler became chancellor.
5. Were Hitler's actions therefore justified?
Only in his mad little mind. His quest for lebensraum and virulent anti-semitism were plainly laid out in Mein Kampf. Hitler did not simply re-arm the Rhineland, Annex Sudetenland, and negotiate the Anschluss. He conquered Czechoslovakia and launched an assault on Poland that was designed to take everything from the Vistula west -- he did not beat Poland, annex the Danzig corridor and go home. Even with all the anti-Versailles fervor in Germany he had his thugs stage a "polish" attack on a German radio post in order to justify a strike by his entire army and air force -- because he wasn't sure the people would back him otherwise!
Summary: Had a Weimar Germany gone to war to ease the worst of the extravagent clauses of Versailles, there might have been justification in some ways. Hitler' war was a grab for power -- thievery writ large.
Seamus
PanzerJaeger
08-26-2005, 04:20
Some points...
Germany did not "willfully" sign the treaty of Versailles. France threatened more violence if it was not signed.
The question is: Is a nation bound to live up to a completely unfair treaty forced upon them if they were not an aggressor nation? If say, Canada, simply adhered to its alliance with Britain and they eventually lost the war, should they willfully accept an unending payment of reperations to the former enemy?
The Iraq comparison has been brought up. If you remember Iraq invaded Kuwait, yet Germany during WW1 was not 1st, not even 2nd to initiate hostilities, but the 3rd.
I dont know if the people hear claiming they would be happy living under the Versailles treaty because their nation was forced to sign it understand fully what that treaty did.
If you are actually making the arguement that Germany was justified with its agression, then I'm very dissappointed.
I am very much making that argument. I think you would agree if your children were starving due to unfair punishment forced upon your nation for a war it did not start, not to punish it but to keep it weak.
But hey, its just a historical question and my opinion. The war was fought 60 years ago.. ~;)
Shaka_Khan
08-26-2005, 04:27
Warnings Level: 4 ~;)
Strike For The South
08-26-2005, 04:28
No Germany wasn't justified a quick run through
1.All of Europe was going through hardships
2. just because Germany wanted to restore imperial power dosent give them the right to trounce over weaker nations what weaker you say thats right Germany was far from the weakest
3. This wasn't about the treaty power and the aryan race comes to my mind but hey I only read what the school tells me
The German people were deaspretly looking for purpose (As was everyone else) and found it in Hitlers blowhard Idealogy It sucks the Germans were sucked in but don't justify war and murder by saying they were Euorpes whipping boy
I just love historical discussions.
Now to the The Treaty of Versailles being willfully signed or forced signed. Which would be the hinge on the German justification for returning to war.
Now one must first understand the Timeline.
On October 3, 1918 Germany requested a ceasefire - with the Allies.
On November 11, 1918 Germany signed an armistice
On June 28, 1919 Germany signed the Treaty of Versailles.
http://www.loyno.edu/history/journal/1994-5/Smestad.htm
On the western front American forces joined British and French armies in breaking the stalemate and driving the Germans back to Sedan; the German government, now in chaos following the abdication of Emperor William II, sued for peace. The leaders of the new German Republic signed an armistice on November 11, 1918
Now notice the wording of the Armistice that Germany agreed to in November of 1918.
http://www.lib.byu.edu/~rdh/wwi/1918/prearmistice.html
It was only suppose to be for a period of 30 days - however Germany continued to abide by the Armistice.
Now to the treaty itself - imposed and forced by the allies - again Germany was allowed a choice by the Allies.
http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/treaty_of_versailles.htm
After agreeing to the Armistice in November 1918, the Germans had been convinced that they would be consulted by the Allies on the contents of the Treaty. This did not happen and the Germans were in no position to continue the war as her army had all but disintegrated. Though this lack of consultation angered them, there was nothing they could do about it. Therefore, the first time that the German representatives saw the terms of the Treaty was just weeks before they were due to sign it in the Hall of Mirrors at the Palace of Versailles on June 28th 1919.
There was anger throughout Germany when the terms were made public. The Treaty became known as a Diktat - as it was being forced on them and the Germans had no choice but to sign it. Many in Germany did not want the Treaty signed, but the representatives there knew that they had no choice as German was incapable of restarting the war again.
In one last gesture of defiance, the captured German naval force held at Scapa Flow (north of Scotland) scuttled itself i.e. deliberately sank itself.
Germany was given two choices:
1) sign the Treaty or
2) be invaded by the Allies.
They signed the Treaty as in reality they had no choice. When the ceremony was over, Clemenceau went out into the gardens of Versailles and said "It is a beautiful day".
Was it a fair treaty - hell no it wasn't. Put lets approach the subject with a little honesty. While Germany had no real opition to sign the treaty - they did so because they chose to do so - verus being invaded by the Allies.
Which is different from what happen in 1940 when Germany was sitting in France.
Devastatin Dave
08-26-2005, 05:02
I am very much making that argument. I think you would agree if your children were starving due to unfair punishment forced upon your nation for a war it did not start, not to punish it but to keep it weak.
But hey, its just a historical question and my opinion. The war was fought 60 years ago.. ~;)
Then one could justify the Palestinian bombings, the take over of Cuba by Castro, the overthrow of the Tzar of Russia, the IRA's bombings, as well as the insurgents in Iraq. You would not be advocating moral relativety my good friend, would you? You gave me grief on my position change on abortion, slight change I might add. I find the position of Germany and the amount of death in which it caused in the 30's and 40's to be far worse than any penalty it recieved for its aggression and its starting of WW1. The loser of a war, a war in which Germany started twice, pays penalties. Guess we'll just have to disagree in what is just. Sorry my dear friend... :bow:
PanzerJaeger
08-26-2005, 05:06
Was it a fair treaty - hell no it wasn't. Put lets approach the subject with a little honesty. While Germany had no real opition to sign the treaty - they did so because they chose to do so - verus being invaded by the Allies.
The question is, was Germany - with or without the leadership of the Nazis - justified in fighting to throw off the treaty that continued to hurt them? The circumstances surrounding WW1 should be taken into consideration too.. especially the alliance system.
PanzerJaeger
08-26-2005, 05:19
Then one could justify the Palestinian bombings, the take over of Cuba by Castro, the overthrow of the Tzar of Russia, the IRA's bombings, as well as the insurgents in Iraq.
I think the German situation is very unique. Its important to take into account the alliance system of the time - a very flawwed system. Germany honored commitments to allies just as Britain, France, and Russia did. They did not start WW1.
Now of course the loser of a war should expect what losers of wars get, but the Versailles punishment went far beyond anything reasonable. If you actually read it, its incredible.
My argument is that Germany was justified in fighting the countries whose policies were seriously endangering the nation, not that Hitler was justified in doing all his other projects.
Guess we'll just have to disagree in what is just. Sorry my dear friend...
Im certainly used to that. Im just glad most people are able to discuss such things rationally. ~;)
The question is, was Germany - with or without the leadership of the Nazis - justified in fighting to throw off the treaty that continued to hurt them? The circumstances surrounding WW1 should be taken into consideration too.. especially the alliance system.
Attempting to throw off the condtions of the Treaty of Versailles began almost immediately by Hilter - before any invasion of Poland.
Germany was willing to initially ignore the treaty starting around 1933 - a little at a time - with little to no attempt at enforcement by the allies.
As the allies backed off on the enforcement of the treaty - Germany - ie Hilter - began to ignore other areas of the treaty. The allies were not willing to enforce the Treaty any longer by force - therefor Germany was still not justified in attacking Poland to regain its percieved lost terrority.
Hilter had already proven to both himself and the allies that they would not enforce the treaty.
sharrukin
08-26-2005, 05:21
The question is, was Germany - with or without the leadership of the Nazis - justified in fighting to throw off the treaty that continued to hurt them? The circumstances surrounding WW1 should be taken into consideration too.. especially the alliance system.
"fighting to throw off the treaty"
The answer to that question is yes.
But that is not at all the same as asking if WW2 was justified.
If a guy comes into my house I am justified in shooting him.
I am not justified in hunting his kids down and killing them.
The justification only goes so far and covers so much.
Red Harvest
08-26-2005, 05:24
The question is, was Germany - with or without the leadership of the Nazis - justified in fighting to throw off the treaty that continued to hurt them? The circumstances surrounding WW1 should be taken into consideration too.. especially the alliance system.
Throwing off the treaty is completely different from starting a World War to establish a Third Reich. This was not about righting wrongs, it was about conquering everyone once and for all. The allies really didn't want war with Germany in WWII from what I recall reading. Germany could have ignored the treaty without a full scale war.
Hmm. Is it even fair to describe the German role in WW1 as just upholding an alliance? I seem to remember reading that the Germans began heavy mobilization for war a good bit before the assassination of that Archduke. I actually got the impression that the Germans were essentially looking to conquer somebody, and the assasination just provided a useful excuse.
Spetulhu
08-26-2005, 05:36
WW II as Good vs Evil? I can't possibly imagine Stalin's USSR on the side of Good even when compared to Hitler's Germany! ~:eek:
No, this war was about power, resources and influence for both sides.
PanzerJaeger
08-26-2005, 05:44
Thats a good point about the Treaty not being upheld.. reiterated 3 times. ~;)
Did the treaty still have meaning if it was ignored? Was there a level of principle involved and revenge? I think so..
Whatever. We can argue if the Treay of Versailles was so punitive that Germany was justified in striking out, but since we kicked their butts it really doesn't matter.
I for one blame Canada. Clearly they were the puppet masters behind the whole affair.
ichi ~:cheers:
Perhaps I'm oversimplifying this but, before the major hostilities commenced with the invasion of Poland, hadn't the German government already pretty much wiped their collective butts with the treaty and gotten away with it? If so, this justification for war is kinda lost since they had already gotten out from under many of the treaty's impositions de facto.
EDIT: Oops, looks like Red already beat me to this line of thought. :shrug:
PanzerJaeger
08-26-2005, 05:53
Hmm. Is it even fair to describe the German role in WW1 as just upholding an alliance? I seem to remember reading that the Germans began heavy mobilization for war a good bit before the assassination of that Archduke. I actually got the impression that the Germans were essentially looking to conquer somebody, and the assasination just provided a useful excuse.
Some historians, revisionist in my opinion, have pushed the idea that Germany was looking for a fight.
In my opinion, from what Ive read, that isnt the case. Germany's army and navy were not prepared in the way they should have been for a major war.
The historians point to the build up of the German military and the Wilhelm's love of the military. Hell if i were running a country next to the two most powerful empires in the world I would build as big an army as I could too, and I would probably play with it on the weekends just as Wilhelm did. ~;)
Red Harvest
08-26-2005, 06:03
Did the treaty still have meaning if it was ignored? Was there a level of principle involved and revenge? I think so..
So revenge is a virtue?
PanzerJaeger
08-26-2005, 06:15
Did I say that? I was acknowledging your point as a good one and suggesting revenge may have had more to do with it than actually ending the Versailles punishments.
Some historians, revisionist in my opinion, have pushed the idea that Germany was looking for a fight.
In my opinion, from what Ive read, that isnt the case. Germany's army and navy were not prepared in the way they should have been for a major war.
The historians point to the build up of the German military and the Wilhelm's love of the military. Hell if i were running a country next to the two most powerful empires in the world I would build as big an army as I could too, and I would probably play with it on the weekends just as Wilhelm did. ~;)
All of Europe was spoiling for a fight - that is why WW1 blew up so fast.
Kagemusha
08-26-2005, 10:14
I dont think Germany had justification to attack other countries in WWII.But i have to disagree that its Eastern European and Northern European Allies were evil because they agreed to help Germany on their attack against SU in 1941.I believe that they had two options to help Germany on attack against their allready aggressive neighbour Soviet Union or go to war against Germany.If Germany wouldnt had support from them i believe that it would have only led to another Ribbentrop pact where Germany and Soviet Union would have taken those countries together. :bow:
Then one could justify the Palestinian bombings, the take over of Cuba by Castro, the overthrow of the Tzar of Russia, the IRA's bombings, as well as the insurgents in Iraq. You would not be advocating moral relativety my good friend, would you? You gave me grief on my position change on abortion, slight change I might add. I find the position of Germany and the amount of death in which it caused in the 30's and 40's to be far worse than any penalty it recieved for its aggression and its starting of WW1. The loser of a war, a war in which Germany started twice, pays penalties. Guess we'll just have to disagree in what is just. Sorry my dear friend... :bow:
Now how often do I agree with Dave? well atleast 1 time now hehe :bow:
But I have to say that the revolutions in Cuba and Russia are very different, they are sure justified, but how the communist parties handled the situation after victory, thats another story.
Was WW2 justified? No
Was the treatment of the German nation after WW1 justified? No
Al Khalifah
08-26-2005, 10:44
This topic should be separated from the evils of Hitler and relates only to the foreign policy of the time. Was Germany entitled to attack nations that had a stated policy of keeping the country weak? How would you feel if your neighboring countries kept your country militarily and financially weak simply because your country lost a war it did not start? Was the response toward the Versailles enforcers justified after what they did to Germany?
I think this is a very important stipulation for this discussion, but perhaps not for the reason that you have given PJ. It is important that the attrocities of the Nazi party not be considered when evaluating other nations response to Germany's aggression, because at the time the major European powers did not have much knowledge of what was actually going on. Also remember that the Endlösung der Judenfrage was not finalised until January 1942 at Wannsee. By this point, the war had been going on for several years. Even more important to remember is that the other European nations simply did not care about the Nazi party's persecution of the Jews. Anti-semetism was still strong in Europe and their was even strong sympathy for what the Germans were doing in many quarters.
In short, the Allies did not fight the 2nd World War because of the Holocaust or the oppression of Nazi party. This was not a war of good against evil, if you believe this war was about the Holocaust, you'll think the American Civil War was caused exclusively by the issue of slavery. As has already been pointed out by several patrons, the Western Allies were very hesitant to enter into a military alliance with the Communist USSR, because the moral relativity of the time put Nazi Germany as the lesser of these two great evils.
]In my opinion, from what Ive read, that isnt the case. Germany's army and navy were not prepared in the way they should have been for a major war.
The historians point to the build up of the German military and the Wilhelm's love of the military. Hell if i were running a country next to the two most powerful empires in the world I would build as big an army as I could too, and I would probably play with it on the weekends just as Wilhelm did.
A book I suggest you read (you may already have done) is Hitler's Second Book: The Unpublished Sequel to "Mein Kampf". This book sets out much of Hitler's mindset regarding foreign policy in the run up to the 2nd World War, including his belief that Britain would ally with Germany against Russia and France. More importantly he presents a critical analysis of the German preperation in the run up to the First World War in which he argues quite convincingly that if Germany had restricted her mobilisation to ground forces, then once again Britain would have joined with her natural ally. I have to agree with Hitler here in that the construction of a navy designed to rival Britain's own forced her hand into allying with France against a rival North Sea power that could threaten her naval hegemony. Until this point in history, Britain had remained somewhat isolationist with regards to European land conflicts unless they threatened Britains control of the seas or her trade network.
I haven't waded through all of this so forgive me if this has been said. But by 1939 the Versailles Treaty had long been ignored. Germany was once again economically and militarily strong. If they had pushed at the odd border, then fair enough - but they went off on the whole liebensraum (sp?) thing which was another tangent altogether.
Really you have to see the interwar Germany period in three phases - Versailles, reparations and the Weimar Republic. The failure of Versailles, Weimar and the rise of the Nazis. And finally the end of reparations, a growing Germany and appeasement.
The Munich Agreement between Germany and the western powers was not a defensive document. It was not about being passive. 'Germany will respect all Western Borders'. It was about the western powers saying - if Germany wants to take a pop at the communists then great, but don't come this way.
yesdachi
08-26-2005, 14:25
Your ability to look at things from a different point of view is admirable PJ. :bow:
I think that the Versailles Treaty was unfair but I think they were lucky to get it. I think everyone was tired of fighting but if things would have continued Germany would have been divided up into a pie for everyone to have taken a piece of. They were forced into signing because there was no viable options left, but I don’t think they had any intention of holding to it, and as it turns out they didn’t.
Perhaps, had they stuck to it (or mostly stuck to it) after a while they could have attempted to renegotiate the terms? Possibility? Instead of secretly building up their military and striking like a bold of lightning across half the planet.
Who’s job was it to monitor them and to ensure that they were sticking to the terms? (Perhaps the weapons inspectors in Iraq are their descendants? Grandpa said: “Germany isn’t building tanks.” Grandson said: “Iraq doesn’t have WMD.”) ~D
Meneldil
08-26-2005, 14:32
The Versailles treaty was revised about 5 times between 1918 and 1938, and each times, France, Belgium and UK agreed to stop pillaging Germany's economy. It did not prevent Hitler from claiming that the Allies (obviously led by the Jews) were responsible for germany economical and political situation.
Furthermore, the idea of cancelling the treaty has been proposed by people like Aristide Briand before 1933.
the Western Allies were very hesitant to enter into a military alliance with the Communist USSR
Wrong, France and UK were looking for an alliance with USSR long before the war.
Was the treatment of the German nation after WW1 justified? No
So was the treatement of France in 1871. So was the treatement of Germany and Japan in 1945.
Some historians, revisionist in my opinion, have pushed the idea that Germany was looking for a fight.
Errr, in 1914, France and Germany *were* looking for a fight, just as Russia and Austria were looking for a fight. The 2 countries hated eachother faithfully, and full scale war would have started at some point. France was looking for a revenge after 1871, and Germany was willing to crush one of its biggest rival.
On another note, France and Germany tried to set more friendly relations before Hitler took the power.
Al Khalifah
08-26-2005, 15:07
Wrong, France and UK were looking for an alliance with USSR long before the war.
Read up on the Winter War. France and the UK were making plans to fight against the USSR, even after the 2nd World War had begun. The British and French Governments did not trust the socialist USSR, especially after the Nazi-Soviet Pact.
Ianofsmeg16
08-26-2005, 15:19
You could say one good thing happened because of WW2....the London Slums were cleared, ergo the war is justified :)
Red Harvest
08-26-2005, 19:13
In short, the Allies did not fight the 2nd World War because of the Holocaust or the oppression of Nazi party. This was not a war of good against evil, if you believe this war was about the Holocaust, you'll think the American Civil War was caused exclusively by the issue of slavery. As has already been pointed out by several patrons, the Western Allies were very hesitant to enter into a military alliance with the Communist USSR, because the moral relativity of the time put Nazi Germany as the lesser of these two great evils.
While the details of the holocaust were not known to the general public, the racist nationalistic Nazi approach was, as was the ultra aggressive military stance. I agree with you about some of the moral relativity, but "good vs. evil" arguments do apply when referring to the thinking of the time. Germany was the first to employ large scale (note the qualifiers) chemical weapons attacks on the battlefield. That point would not have been lost either when doing the good vs. evil balance.
While the American War was not exclusively about slavery, it was ignited almost exclusively by slavery. For the South secession was a pre-emptive move to "secure" slavery. Slavery had come to define the culture and economy of the South, so any perceived threats to slavery were considered direct attacks on the South itself. The North's motivations were of course different and not centered on the slave issue, but the North would not accept disunion (at least as it was presented, a fait accompli.) The South initiated the war, and it did so to preserve slavery. Ironically, slavery in the South was not directly threatened by the election of Lincoln, but that is not how the South perceived things.
Al Khalifah
08-26-2005, 19:32
Germany was the first to employ large scale (note the qualifiers) chemical weapons attacks on the battlefield. That point would not have been lost either when doing the good vs. evil balance.
What do you mean by the sentance in bold ?
Red Harvest
08-26-2005, 20:22
What do you mean by the sentance in bold ?
WWI. The French actually employed some chemical hand grenades at a tactical level in 1914. But it was the Germans who first used full scale chemical attack. Therefore, they had the stigma attached of having used chemical weapons first...which is not really true. Chemical weapons were and are considered "evil" in the relative scale of weapons.
Al Khalifah
08-26-2005, 21:03
By whom?
Britain had used chemical weapons against Iraqi villagers during revolts against occupation between 1920 and 1922. Even Winston Churchill authorised the use of mustard gas against resistors. To quote the man himself:
"I do not understand this squeamishness about the use of gas. I am strongly in favour of using poison gas against uncivilised tribes."
The belief being that suppressing rebellions using conventional warfare would take too long and be too costly.
France and Spain used mustard gas bombs during the Rif War in Morocco (1921-1927) against the Berbers.
Italy used mustard gas during their invasion of Ethiopia even after the Geneva Protocol was signed (by Italy in 1925) whereby the major powers had agreed never to use biological or chemical weapons in the field of warfare again.
Red Harvest
08-26-2005, 21:31
The stigma was still there of being labelled as the first, true or not. Folks largely remember it as something introduced by the Germans, and later banned by international agreement.
I'm not going to go into the relativity aspects of chemical ordnance too much. As a military weapon it is much like many others, it kills or horribly wounds, and often not just the target. It seems the main reason to ban them was the psychological/morale impact, rather than actual military effectiveness. They operate more as a weapon of terror even on the battlefield. And there is also something psychological about killing all the living things from afar, but leaving structures, trenches largely intact. It drives some inate fears.
Submarine warfare was also something the Germans had been forced to rely on, particularly against merchant shipping. The inability of a submarine to abide by former naval traditions of course carried a large negative stigma, especially as viewed by other established naval powers.
Kagemusha
08-26-2005, 21:37
But is this valid point because Germans didnt use chemical weapons in battlefield in WWII.
PanzerJaeger
08-26-2005, 22:03
I think Red is saying that although the holocaust was not generally known early in the war, the Germans had a negative stigma left over from WW1.
Even though many of the allied nations used gas and such, Im sure they didnt advertise it. However, propaganda against Germany Im sure highlighted their use of "cowardly" weapons to the exclusion of all others.
However, it is important to note that although FDR hated the Nazis, there was much German sympathy in the US, and a bit of corporate collaboration, before Hitler declared..
Red Harvest
08-26-2005, 22:44
But is this valid point because Germans didnt use chemical weapons in battlefield in WWII.
Yes, because we are talking about conditions leading up to events in WWII. As PJ recognized, I'm not trying to make a moral judgement about the methods. I am trying to identify some things that would have been used as moral judgements by various nations in regards to the Germans/Nazis of the time. Recent history of the time, WWI, would clearly factor greatly in that perception. Different regime of course, but the same nation, and very aggressive.
Al Khalifah
08-27-2005, 00:41
Apparently the mustard gas stockpiled for WW2 is still affecting Europe today. Since much of the mustard gas canisters stockpiled by Germany was dumped into the Baltic Sea, many of these canisters have rusted through and washed up on shores, where they can be mistaken for amber. Even now it can still cause serious health problems.
Shells containing chemical weapons are also found in France every once in a while.
Even WWI is still affecting places today. Farmers, especially in places like Verdun, still plow up old WWI ordnance conventional and gas from those ferocious artilliery battles and blow themselves to pieces.
However, it is important to note that although FDR hated the Nazis, there was much German sympathy in the US, and a bit of corporate collaboration, before Hitler declared..
Bush's grandpa made some good deals with the nazis and their labourcamps I think.
KafirChobee
08-27-2005, 04:51
Answer : Yes, it was. It stopped the Nazi bastards in their tracks.
As for the Thread? No, it is not worth it. This is something PJ brings up about every 3 or 4 months or so. It is BS. Anyone that has contributed to this tripe, get real. WWII was an evil necessity to rid us of evil regimes with the intent to rule the world -as some do today.
Were PJ to Address the necessity for a specific battle - then he might have a point. But, an entire WorldWar? Nonsense. Even the premise to deny its necessity is founded on neo-nazi lines - after all they were right, didn't you know? Had we just copitulated to the Nazi demands just imagine the paradise we would all be living in today. Let alone giving into those compassionated Imperial Japanese that won overwhelming support in Nanching.
Dumb Topic. Dumber host. PJ, get with it boy, get into today - read something - like maybe Das Kapital.
:bow:
PanzerJaeger
08-27-2005, 05:42
Ahh, the same old lies and personal attacks from Kafir without any real understanding or contribution to the topic. I would have been surprised if you hadnt shown up in this thread with your typical nonsensical yet vitriolic rhetoric. :coffeenews:
Meneldil
08-27-2005, 09:44
Read up on the Winter War. France and the UK were making plans to fight against the USSR, even after the 2nd World War had begun. The British and French Governments did not trust the socialist USSR, especially after the Nazi-Soviet Pact.
Huh, I know the Brits and the French made some attempts to attack USSR : the French planned to attack the petrol industry in the Caucasus from their Syrian airports, and both country planned to send divisions into Finland.
That doesn't change the fact that the allies have been trying to set up an alliance with Stalin way before 1939. The alliance did not come to a term mostly because Stalin wanted his troops to be allowed to cross Poland in case of a war against Germany (which the Allies refused, for obvious reasons).
But when the germano-soviet treaty was signed, they had to quickly make up some plans, in case they would have to fight against USSR.
And overall, I agree with Kafir. The war was needed only because it allowed to get ride of some of the most dangerous regimes that ever existed, and brought peace into Europe (in fact, I think Germany and Italy should have been hammered as soon as Hitler/Mussolini came to power).
Using the Treaty of Versailles as an apology for Germany policy is totaly rubbish.
cegorach
08-27-2005, 10:19
To me, this justifies the attack on Poland, which would not cede areas that had a majority German populace such as Prussia that were unfairly given to them. The overly harsh punishment of Germany also justifies the crushing of France and the British in France, as they were the major enforcers of the unfair treatment of post-war Germany.
EXCUSE ME !!! A majority of population ??? :furious3:
Give me your sources and I bash the man who wrote them :charge:
Overall about 1-1,5 million of Germans lived in Poland after 1918, the areas 'given' to Poland were almost always 80% or more Polish. There were only relatively small 'islands' of German population.
So was it unfair m8 or is it only our sources or wishfullthinking ~:confused: :book:
The Treaty of Versailles was signed because the German Armies, after invading a neutral country, attacked another one without provocations.
The treaty of Versailles was effectively a pay-back for the 1971 treaty, where France had to pay 2 billion of Gold Francs, in order to kick her out of the European game for 50 years, in Bismark’s mind.
The conditions of the 1871 peace treaty were humiliating, and the dismantlement and annexation of Alsace-Lorraine by Germany.
Georges Clemenceau was a politician who remembered that Germany was proclaimed in Versailles…
So, PzJg, if you want to claim that the treaty of Versailles was unjust, you have to take in consideration:
France and UK had to pay US for the weapons and material (sum which was entirely paid) for a war they didn’t start… So “Germany will pay”.
France was attacked. The German declared war upon France. So, in this case, yes Germany clearly started the war.
Neutral Belgium was attacked.
The major battle fields were in France and part of Belgium… Germany suffered no loses in term of industries, buildings, infrastructures. It is still impossible to cultivate some parts of Champagne because metal and explosives are too numerous…
The Germans ignored the treaty without consequences, they reamed, reoccupied the Ruhr without any consequences… The humiliation of Versailles came because the allies didn’t invaded Germany, the Germans didn’t thought they were defeated in battle (gave the myth of the Knife in the Back). That was one of the reason why during WW2, the allies bombed all the Germans cities. They couldn’t denied the defeat one time more…
For WW1, all nations were ready. Russians wanted to take revenge on their defeat against Japanese (Port Arthur and Tshushima), France wanted to take back Alsace-Lorraine, Austria-Hungary wanted to keep their protectorate in Bosnia, Serbia wanted to reunified all the Serbs in one territory, England was concerned by German Continental Power (She didn’t like it when it was French, won’t accept it from the Germans), Italy had territorial disputes with Austria…
Concerning the Winter War in Finland, the French sent Chasseurs Alpins and the 13 Demi-Brigade de Legion Etrangere to help Mennerheim. But the war ended before, so they were used latter in Narvik. After the defeat in 1940, the 13DBLE stayed in England and I think is the unit as such earning the title/decoration Compagnon de La Liberation.
Was WW2 justified: Well, had the Allies choice? For Germany, as the French recovered the humiliation of 1871, they could have done it. All the other claims and allegations made by Hitler (vital space, Aryan superiority, right for expansion, etc) are not good enough. Hitler chose the path of war and unfortunately the German voted for him. Ok, it was the last time they voted, and were not allowed to change their mind (that is the trouble when you vote for extremists).
In my mind, if the only justification for Germany (as legitimate one) was the Treaty of Versailles, no, the war wasn’t justified.
bmolsson
08-28-2005, 05:18
A point on the Chemical weapons usage. Wasn't the main reason for not using chemical weapons that they where unpredictable and not very efficient against military units ??
Red Harvest
08-28-2005, 09:23
A point on the Chemical weapons usage. Wasn't the main reason for not using chemical weapons that they where unpredictable and not very efficient against military units ??
Not from what I've read. It was primarily feared that the same weapons would be employed against the attacker. Apparently, German documents suggest that they didn't use their new discoveries for that reason. Chemical weapons were viewed with widespread disgust after WWI and the Geneva Protocol was signed by 16 nations to prohibit their use.
If the military command can prevent introduction of a weapon that will terrify their own men (assuming the enemy has the same) then they are likely to do so. It adds a layer of complexity to warfare to use chemical weapons, and it also makes it more difficult for the attacker to occupy the ground after the attack. I suspect it was "convenient" for everyone not to use chemical weapons as it has negative consequences on one's own forces as well.
France was attacked. The German declared war upon France. So, in this case, yes Germany clearly started the war.
Well, the German government asked France what they would do in case of a German war with Russia. The French responded along the lines that they would do what was in their best interest, leading the german government to think that France would fall into their back and to prevent this there was the "Schlieffen-Plan".
On the 1871 issue I don´t recall the french having to pay for several generations, so it might not have been a nice thing to do, but it was bearable for France, while Germany after WW1 had to pay for a much longer timespan and couldn´t even come up to the monthly expectations in the first time.
The 1871 war was wanted by Bismarck, but the French did their part by demanding a lot of things from Germany. So they and others did before WW1.
In my oppinion there were few if any good leaders in Germany after Bismarck until after WW2. And WW1 was wanted by other nations as well, they just knew how to play the victims and write history afterwards, but I agree that nothing of this justifies WW2.
The issue about Poland and Germany I see similar to Israel and Palestine. Territories changed very often in history and we should accept that.
Duke of Gloucester
08-28-2005, 13:37
Redleg
The Treaty of Versailles was just as much imposed as the treaty establishing Vichy France. The German military machine was falling apart and on the domestic front, the Government had collapsed. Germany had lost and the allies could impose whatever conditions they wanted. The conditions were unfair. Reparations had a precedent, but the War Guilt clause where Germany had to say the war was their fault was unprecendented and did not benefit anyone.
This does not mean that invasions of Czechoslovakia and Poland were justified. Germany could have re-armed, re-militarized the west bank of the Rhine and even occupied the Sudentenland and Danzig corridor. However, these were not foreign policy objectives, these were pretexts for the real objective of Lebensraum.
Louis VI the Fat
08-28-2005, 14:24
To me, this justifies the attack on Poland, which would not cede areas that had a majority German populace such as Prussia that were unfairly given to them. The overly harsh punishment of Germany also justifies the crushing of France and the British in France, as they were the major enforcers of the unfair treatment of post-war Germany.
EXCUSE ME !!! A majority of population ??? :furious3:
Give me your sources and I bash the man who wrote them :charge:
Overall about 1-1,5 million of Germans lived in Poland after 1918, the areas 'given' to Poland were almost always 80% or more Polish. There were only relatively small 'islands' of German population.
So was it unfair m8 or is it only our sources or wishfullthinking ~:confused: :book:Sources?
Try www.Stormfront.org for revisionist sources. You'll find people there blaiming alternatively the pan-slavic onslaught on innocent Germany, Jewish conspirators, America the Jewish puppet state, French faggots or imperialist Britain for WWII.
I'm not even going to bother wasting my time on refuting the revisionist nazi nonsense in this thread.
The Stranger
08-28-2005, 14:29
After a loss in WW1, Germany had the Treaty of Versailles forced upon them. In this treaty, Germany was made to take full responsibility for WW1, pay virtually never-ending reparations to many European nations(mostly France), and cede land that was German - including Prussia - to several nations. Also, Germany was restricted from having anything resembling a strong military.
It was clear through the writings and opinions of the leaders of the time that Germany was to be made weak for an indefinate amount of time.
Germany was essentially punished for fulfilling her alliance obligations just as France, Russia, and Britain had done.
To me, this justifies the attack on Poland, which would not cede areas that had a majority German populace such as Prussia that were unfairly given to them. The overly harsh punishment of Germany also justifies the crushing of France and the British in France, as they were the major enforcers of the unfair treatment of post-war Germany.
Finally to Russia. After the revolution the victorious allies sent troops to fight the communist forces. After that failed, they maintained a strong anti-communist policy. It has always been the policy of the Western World to fight communism wherever it can. Was the war against Russia was any worse than the proxy wars of the Cold War?
This topic should be separated from the evils of Hitler and relates only to the foreign policy of the time. Was Germany entitled to attack nations that had a stated policy of keeping the country weak? How would you feel if your neighboring countries kept your country militarily and financially weak simply because your country lost a war it did not start? Was the response toward the Versailles enforcers justified after what they did to Germany?
the thing people blame hitler for most is killing six million jews and other warcrimes.....nobody would blame rommel. but i dont think this were his true reasons for the war
Evil_Maniac From Mars
08-28-2005, 16:32
Hold on - Germany while didn't start the war - it was Austria and Russia. Germany chose to attack into France.
Wrong. Austria declared war on Serbia, then Russia declared war on Austria.
“On the 1871 issue I don´t recall the french having to pay for several generations, so it might not have been a nice thing to do, but it was bearable for France, while Germany after WW1 had to pay for a much longer timespan and couldn´t even come up to the monthly expectations in the first time”:
You are right, in fact the French paid even faster than Bismarck intended. But it wasn’t his plan. The plan was to put France in misery. However, 1871 was one nation against another nation, so the war damages were less important. 1870-1871 war was wanted by both Germany (Bismarck) and France (Napoleon III) for deferent reason: Bismarck wanted to nited Germany under Prussia, and Napoleon wanted to reinforce his weakening II Empire.
Well, the German didn’t pay for generation (one generation is 30 years), but the legacy of WW1 stays more (until nowadays, to be true). And as said in previous intervention, the Treaty was renegotiated. Was is funny, somewhere is that the Allies gave to Hitler what they refused to the Weimar…
And Germany declared war against France, whatever the reasons. And invaded a neutral country…
PanzerJaeger
08-28-2005, 21:38
I'm not even going to bother wasting my time on refuting the revisionist nazi nonsense in this thread.
This thread is asking people's opinion about Versailles and how it contributed to the lead up to war. Were the feelings of revenge justified?
The war was fought over 60 years ago, there is no reason why it cannot be discussed in an adult manner without all the immature name calling.
Hitler did not simply gain power on the strength of his rhetoric. He played on the feelings and emotions of a great number of the German people. Some of those feelings were justified and some were not. A discussion of those feelings is not revisionist, nazi, or nonsense.
The Stranger
08-29-2005, 19:26
oh yes most feelings were justified but that does not justify the war. if youre son is killed you can justify it that you will hate that man, that does not however justify your act if you would kill him
Redleg
The Treaty of Versailles was just as much imposed as the treaty establishing Vichy France. The German military machine was falling apart and on the domestic front, the Government had collapsed. Germany had lost and the allies could impose whatever conditions they wanted. The conditions were unfair. Reparations had a precedent, but the War Guilt clause where Germany had to say the war was their fault was unprecendented and did not benefit anyone.
Agreed.
Europe had another big war coming. One way or another. Smaler wars and incidents" were popping up all over europe - and would have continued to pop up until some kind of big war would have started. Some were connected to facism. Some not.
Spains civil war, Italys north african interests, the balkan factions, russian expansionism (finland, hungary, romania), germanys grievances with most neighbours, ireland. The list goes on.
Red Peasant
08-30-2005, 04:55
Sources?
Try www.Stormfront.org for revisionist sources. You'll find people there blaiming alternatively the pan-slavic onslaught on innocent Germany, Jewish conspirators, America the Jewish puppet state, French faggots or imperialist Britain for WWII.
I'm not even going to bother wasting my time on refuting the revisionist nazi nonsense in this thread.
Hear, hear.
Adolf Hitler certainly thought that the war (any war!) was justified. No nancy liberal quibbling or moral relativism for that guy, a proper right-winger. ~;)
Maybe some Germans just can't get over the fact that Germany lost...again. Hence the resurrection of topics like this on a regular basis.
I suppose the effect is in some way cathartic for these poor German victims of Allied aggression and imperialism. Hopefully they don't think that they have 'unfinished business'. ~:eek:
Papewaio
08-30-2005, 05:56
Hi Red, Havn't seen you posting for awhile?
What have you been up to?
Ser Clegane
08-30-2005, 07:54
Maybe some Germans just can't get over the fact that Germany lost...again. Hence the resurrection of topics like this on a regular basis.
I take exception to the use of the plural in the context of this forum ~;)
Papewaio
08-30-2005, 08:54
Maybe some = possibly a minority
It is not a blanket statement.
Red Peasant
08-30-2005, 08:57
Hi Red, Havn't seen you posting for awhile?
What have you been up to?
Hi Pap.
Thought I'd drop in for old time's sake. Glad to see you're thriving. Hope married life is treating you well.
I've been very busy with my MA, so not much time for the frivolities of the Org, though the dissertation will be finished and handed in soon. Then back to the real world of jobs and such. How depressing....I much prefer to be a student!
Have to get the PhD funding application in asap........
Red Peasant
08-30-2005, 08:59
I take exception to the use of the plural in the context of this forum ~;)
Lol...and I'm in trouble again already ~D
:bow:
Ser Clegane
08-30-2005, 09:01
It is not a blanket statement.
I know - hence my limiting reference to this forum and the smiley ~:)
and I'm in trouble again already
Naah...
Adrian II
08-30-2005, 09:02
I know - hence my limiting reference to this forum and the smiley ~:)You revisionist you. ~:cool:
Papewaio
08-30-2005, 09:21
I know - hence my limiting reference to this forum and the smiley ~:)
Good point. ~:cheers:
This thread is asking people's opinion about Versailles and how it contributed to the lead up to war. Were the feelings of revenge justified?
The war was fought over 60 years ago, there is no reason why it cannot be discussed in an adult manner without all the immature name calling.
Hitler did not simply gain power on the strength of his rhetoric. He played on the feelings and emotions of a great number of the German people. Some of those feelings were justified and some were not. A discussion of those feelings is not revisionist, nazi, or nonsense.
No it is not. Read your first post again. You ask, in essence, whether the war was justified on the basis of Versaille, not whether feeling of revenge were justified.
Besides which you have a reputation as a Third Reich fanboy and I for one look forward to threads such as "Were the SS really that bad, after all they really loved their dear old mums".
Fact is that by the outbreak of war Versailles was dead and the balance of power had shifted to Germany. There is reason to believe that Hitler could have got his more reasonable demands (eg the German territory given to Poland) through negotiation. Poland's allies would likely have sold her down the river. However Hitler's treatment of Czechoslovakia shows that this was never really going to be an option on his behalf.
PanzerJaeger
08-30-2005, 22:52
Besides which you have a reputation as a Third Reich fanboy and I for one look forward to threads such as "Were the SS really that bad, after all they really loved their dear old mums".
Another valuable contribution by Slyspy. I see this time you even managed to avoid your normal immature namecalling - somewhat. Of course, your imagination has gotten the better of you, as usual. ~:rolleyes:
Zalmoxis
08-30-2005, 23:43
After a loss in WW1, Germany had the Treaty of Versailles forced upon them. In this treaty, Germany was made to take full responsibility for WW1, pay virtually never-ending reparations to many European nations(mostly France), and cede land that was German - including Prussia - to several nations. Also, Germany was restricted from having anything resembling a strong military.
It was clear through the writings and opinions of the leaders of the time that Germany was to be made weak for an indefinate amount of time.
Germany was essentially punished for fulfilling her alliance obligations just as France, Russia, and Britain had done.
To me, this justifies the attack on Poland, which would not cede areas that had a majority German populace such as Prussia that were unfairly given to them. The overly harsh punishment of Germany also justifies the crushing of France and the British in France, as they were the major enforcers of the unfair treatment of post-war Germany.
Finally to Russia. After the revolution the victorious allies sent troops to fight the communist forces. After that failed, they maintained a strong anti-communist policy. It has always been the policy of the Western World to fight communism wherever it can. Was the war against Russia was any worse than the proxy wars of the Cold War?
This topic should be separated from the evils of Hitler and relates only to the foreign policy of the time. Was Germany entitled to attack nations that had a stated policy of keeping the country weak? How would you feel if your neighboring countries kept your country militarily and financially weak simply because your country lost a war it did not start? Was the response toward the Versailles enforcers justified after what they did to Germany?
Now now, we all lightly dislike Poland, and Stalin had it coming, but can you really ignore the jews?
Another valuable contribution by Slyspy. I see this time you even managed to avoid your normal immature namecalling - somewhat. Of course, your imagination has gotten the better of you, as usual. ~:rolleyes:
Show me my "normal immature name calling". IIRC correctly the last time I used that term about you was when you were praising the famed Prussian military leadership and disassociating it from the Nazi regime. The separation was false then and it is false in this instance too.
The terms of Versaille may have helped the rise of the Nazi party to power but the war was not inevitable unless you factor in Adolf Hitler. Neither France nor Britain wanted war and they were not prepared for it. In fact appeasement was still the order of the day despite gradual rearmament - communism was regarded as the greater threat. Negotiations for the return of Prussia would probably have left the onus on Poland to surrender her new lands. However Hitler, deciding that Britain and France would not act, went for war and conquest instead. The fall of Czechoslovakia had heralded the doom of Poland and the plunging of the world into war.
Even if Versaille did justify the occupation of the Sudentenland and reclaimation of Prussia then it does not justify the annexation of those nations involved (or the splitting of Poland with the Soviets). Neither does it justify the kind of regime that operated in those occupied lands. Neither does it justify the conquest of Norway, Denmark, The Netherlands, Belgium or Luxembourg. These were all countries invaded by your much vaunted Prussian officers on behalf of a murderous Austrian dictator.
In reply to Zalmoxis: There is no need to dislike Poland or Poles. In fact I rather feel sorry for them. However you are right in that the evils of Hitler cannot be separated for his foreign policy. That policy IS one of his evils.
KafirChobee
08-31-2005, 08:37
Ya know what? I promised myself to ignore this BS, after my last post - and PJ's personal attack on me. ~D
But, I can't. ~D
How outlandish is the premise that if the modern western world had just been nicer to the Germans, maybe Hitler (or someone like him) would not have found it necessary to attack one nation after another proclaiming that this was his last request, his last demand ... the last need of the Arian race (what ever the f' that is... I know... I know..it exists in the minds of some men - like PJ). Maybe, a beaten nation would just accept that they were a buncha woosies - or, maybe not if someone told them they were going to rule the world (destiny! called it any kind of destiny you like, but call it DESTINY). I don't know, if I were listening to the BS propagandized I would want to be a ruler (after all 12 inches makes a ruler ... ya know?)
Here's my problem with this question: First, it's BS. Second, it's unjustifiable - what went down went down; imagine every person on a jury having been robbed and then being asked to judge a robber - guilty! That is what happened with Germany after WWI, the victors wanted their spoils after spilling the blood of their youth - much like what is happening today. you know? But, one man (Wilson) wanted to reunite the world in a new order - one that profited all of man kind (not just the wealthy). Guess whom won> We all know, we all have determined the history we associate with ('cause it be's de' truths - is whats my daddy saids) or that we have actually researched and studied. PJ, ..................................?
The different revisionist aspects of the time are all but irrellevent to the facts - they happened and so did the results of them. The big deal is, did anyone learn from them? The answer is a resounding - YES! We did not punish Japan or Germany after WWII (aside from the Nuerenberg trials)- and they prosperred beyond their wildest dreams.... the people of those nations have the best health care, wealthfare, and wages in the world - that's right the world.
Losing a war to the USA is the best thing that can happen to a rouge nation - Hollywood (actually England) made a mock film on it entitled "The Mouse that Roared". That is, losing a war to the US, shame they haven't revised it for Iraq (or shown it there - maybe, the morons there would pick up on the gist of it - or, then again maybe that was another time also).
My point? The premise of the discussion is 5th grade (at best). It's a simple question asked by a 5th grader to get others to answer things he is suppose to research or thiink out for themselves. Or, it's a question proposed by an egotistical juviline with nothing better to do than find those to justify his premise that Hitler was justified. Of course, that's just my opinion of this BS.
The "Mouse(that roared)" is more the point here than anything that I have read that has so far been posted. How sad that newly aquired knowlege by pledgling humanbeings of the 9th grade can stimulate such a prolonged discussion. Amazing, imo. ~D Then again, some will do anything to get out of doing their homework. ~D
Duke of Gloucester
08-31-2005, 12:31
It is an interesting question, not a "fifth grade" one. The actions of the allies in World War II can be justified in hindsight because the Nazi regime was so appalling. What if the regime was not determined to exterminate the Jewish race, but simply acted to reverse the results of an unfair treaty? Would their actions be acceptable? The answer is no, for reasons outlined already - i.e. the Germans went much further than reclaiming the Sudentenland and the Danzig corridor, but that does not mean that the question should not be asked.
I am not sure that you can isolate Woodrow Wilson from blame either. Wasn't he the one that pushed for self-determination and the "creation" of "new" states like Poland and Czechoslovakia? (I know Poland existed as an entity before, but not as a modern nation state).
As for the idea that Germany was not punished at the end of the 2nd World War, well what can I say? The country and its capital were split in two, and they had to ask permission to re-unite 50 years later. Huge areas of land were given to Poland (because the USSR had taken large amounts of west Poland) and the Germans were kicked out of their houses and land. One reason we had better answer PJ’s question negatively, is because if we don’t then logically it would be OK for Germany to attack Poland again to reclaim what they lost at the end of the last World War.
PanzerJaeger
08-31-2005, 17:03
Show me my "normal immature name calling". IIRC correctly the last time I used that term about you was when you were praising the famed Prussian military leadership and disassociating it from the Nazi regime. The separation was false then and it is false in this instance too.
I believe your last personal attack was something like "Panzer is a fool, and everyone knows it.. bla bla bla". You know, the thread where people wondered how a senior member was allowed to act so immature. ~;)
Its pretty clear that you have decided you do not like me so you look for opportunities to personally insult me whenever you can. You have never once addressed any post or thread I have made without a personal attack. I believe that is what is known as a troll.
When Kafir does it, its funny. He really puts some thought and creativity into his jabs. When you do it, you just seem bitter. :shrug:
Then again, some will do anything to get out of doing their homework. ~D
Or Stormfront was down again, leaving some no where else to post their views. I suppose it beats having them wandering about in the streets, though, Kafir. At least here, they occasionally have to defend their viewpoint rather than just ego-stroking each other into a frenzy of warped-love like on Stormfront.
"but simply acted to reverse the results of an unfair treaty?” Unfair treaty? Nations attacked without reasons, loosing 1,600,000 men (for the French) between 17 and 40 years old, industries destroyed, families completely destroyed (one family in Brittany lost all the males, at this period no law to keep at least one male at home) wanted retribution. The aggressors (Austria included) had to pay for their aggression. Remember why it started?
By the Peace of Frankfurt (1871), France had to pay $ 1 billion in gold within 3 years, and to give Alsace and Lorraine (except Belfort). France had not only suffered a humiliating, economically devastating defeat, Bismarck unlike in the case of Austria in 1966 now had pushed through harsh conditions. After the PROCLAMATION OF THE GERMAN EMPIRE on Jan. 2nd 1871 in the mirror hall in Versailles, an act intended to again humiliate the French :book:
I can accept the fact that the Treaty was harsh (no more than the one inflicted by the new Germany on France after 1871, or by the Allies on France after 1815, regime change, occupation, etc) but unfair, no. Beside, as stated in other intervention, it was re-negotiated. Germany had to pay $ 6.6 billion (6 times more than what the French had to pay). I don’t thing it was so harsh, if you compare the devastations inflicted during the two wars (1870, 1914-1918)…
Yes, the after war period was hard for Germany, but it wasn’t so good for France, UK, US neither… :embarassed:
The mistake was the Treaty didn’t include a part for reconstruction.
The desire of revenge came because the Germans refuse to recognise they started the war (technically, they were right, but they declared war on France and invaded neutral Belgium) and denied the fact they lost battles on the field. In 1918, it was the armistice which stopped the Allies armies to cross the borders, not the German army. Because no fights happened in Germany proper, the myth of the knife in the back (because rebellion in the Navy and the army) took place.
PanzerJaeger
08-31-2005, 20:18
Or Stormfront was down again, leaving some no where else to post their views. I suppose it beats having them wandering about in the streets, though, Kafir. At least here, they occasionally have to defend their viewpoint rather than just ego-stroking each other into a frenzy of warped-love like on Stormfront.
This is like the 5th post where you have implied someone you didnt like visits Stormfront.com, and not just me. You really need to get some new jabs.. you sound like a broken record.
If you are going to subtly imply someone is a nazi because they disagree with you, yet not have the balls to actually come out and say what you mean, at least vary your implication. :sleeping:
PanzerJaeger
08-31-2005, 20:41
Unfair treaty? Nations attacked without reasons, loosing 1,600,000 men (for the French) between 17 and 40 years old, industries destroyed, families completely destroyed (one family in Brittany lost all the males, at this period no law to keep at least one male at home) wanted retribution. The aggressors (Austria included) had to pay for their aggression. Remember why it started?
By the Peace of Frankfurt (1871), France had to pay $ 1 billion in gold within 3 years, and to give Alsace and Lorraine (except Belfort). France had not only suffered a humiliating, economically devastating defeat, Bismarck unlike in the case of Austria in 1966 now had pushed through harsh conditions. After the PROCLAMATION OF THE GERMAN EMPIRE on Jan. 2nd 1871 in the mirror hall in Versailles, an act intended to again humiliate the French
I can accept the fact that the Treaty was harsh (no more than the one inflicted by the new Germany on France after 1871, or by the Allies on France after 1815, regime change, occupation, etc) but unfair, no. Beside, as stated in other intervention, it was re-negotiated. Germany had to pay $ 6.6 billion (6 times more than what the French had to pay). I don’t thing it was so harsh, if you compare the devastations inflicted during the two wars (1870, 1914-1918)…
Yes, the after war period was hard for Germany, but it wasn’t so good for France, UK, US neither…
The mistake was the Treaty didn’t include a part for reconstruction.
The desire of revenge came because the Germans refuse to recognise they started the war (technically, they were right, but they declared war on France and invaded neutral Belgium) and denied the fact they lost battles on the field. In 1918, it was the armistice which stopped the Allies armies to cross the borders, not the German army. Because no fights happened in Germany proper, the myth of the knife in the back (because rebellion in the Navy and the army) took place.
Thats one of the main points of discussion. Was Germany responsible for WW1? There are arguments for both points of view.
I happen to feel that Germany came to the aid of an ally in accordance with her treaty obligations just as France did. The invasion of Belgium makes for a good counter argument though.
Louis VI the Fat
08-31-2005, 21:52
Thats one of the main points of discussion. Was Germany responsible for WW1? There are arguments for both points of view.
I happen to feel that Germany came to the aid of an ally in accordance with her treaty obligations just as France did. The invasion of Belgium makes for a good counter argument though.But PJ, neither by law or ethics is one bound to an agreement if fulfilling it requires an illegal act. The argument that Germany was only acting to fullfill her treaty obligations therefore doesn't hold.
The argument that German kids were dying in the streets in the 1930's because of the Versailles Treaty and that the rise of Nazism was therefore justified doesn't hold either. For two reasons:
-The Treaty wasn't enforced anymore. It was not this Treaty but the general depression of the 1930's that caused Germany's poor economic situation.
-During the depression children were dying in the slums of Marseilles, Liverpool and Detroit too.
And France, Britain and the US didn't succumb to totalitarianism.
No, it took that explosive mixture of recession, resentment and stupidity to trick Germany into surrendering it's fate into the hands of a foulmouth madman.
The result? Fifteen million dead Germans. If you think a few German kids dying in the streets is worth a worldwar, what to make of the millions of dead German kids Nazi policy had resulted in then?
Nazism isn't justified. Rather, it was the greatest crime ever commited by and also on the German people.
I happen to feel that Germany came to the aid of an ally in accordance with her treaty obligations just as France did. The invasion of Belgium makes for a good counter argument though
Well, yes and no.
The assassination of the heir of the Austro-Hungarian throne in Sarajevo happened the 28th of June 1914 in Sarajevo.
The 4th of July, the Austrians got proofs of Serbian intervention (in providing the weapons and ammunition) to the killers/terrorists/patriots, depending from which side you look.
The 5th, the Germans told the Austrians that Germany will be stay faithful side by side to the Austro-Hungarian Empire.
The 23rd, a note is given to the Serbian government, which is willing to accept the conditions. However, the tsar, Nicolas II, informed the Serbs that he will help them and even started the preparation for the war. So, the Serbs refused the ultimatum and mobilised.
Vienna declared war to Serbia (by telegram) the 28th. The same day, Russia obtained from France the insurance than Paris will be with St Petersburg in case of war. The day before, Nicolas II had met the French President Raymond Poincarre.
The Germans suddenly realised what was happening (the Kaiser was yachting) and asked the Tsar to do nothing irreversible…
The 30th, the bombardment of a Serbian fort by the Austro-Hungarians pushed Nicolas to mobilise…
The 1st of August, France mobilised. The 2nd, in a last attempt to save the situation, the French troops received the order to withdraw from the German border (around 10 km). But all was lost and this same date the 44 Regiment of Infantry faced the first German incursion. The caporal Jules Andre Peugeot and the lieutenant Camille Mayer become officially the first victims on this side of the war.
The 3rd, Germany declared war to France (after having declared war to Russia).
With the implementation of the Schlieffen plan, the German had to cross Belgium. In doing that, they action the English-Belgium Agreement signed in 1831 (which was designed against the French) and the 4th of August, Great Britain declared war to Germany…
So, in one hand, we can consider Nicolas II as the real instigator of the war. On another hand, without the active support of Germany, had the Austro-Hungarians so keen to declare war against Serbia…
The logic of military obligation (mobilisation before the enemy) and the new technology made the thing which needed months few years before just working within days. You have to notice that all the plans of mobilisation perfectly worked…
In my opinion, Germany was responsible of following. The pre-emptive strike against France had also logic. The war against France was quiet inevitable. But, I think, it was the invasion of Belgium which horrified the so-called civilised world. That what Germany paid at the end. If you read the speach of George Clemenceau (French Prime Minister, the Father of the Victory, or the Tiger, as nick names) he referred to the arrogance of the Junkers casts, this certitude they had they could conquer the world without any moral problems…
That is what made Germany guilty and responsible, to the eyes of the Allies.
Louis VI the Fat
08-31-2005, 22:00
I can accept the fact that the Treaty was harsh (no more than the one inflicted by the new Germany on France after 1871, or by the Allies on France after 1815, regime change, occupation, etc) but unfair, no.I think it was as justified as it was shortsighted.
They had it coming, yes. But at the end of the day, the interest of France is best served by a strong, prosperous and staunchly democratic Germany.
(Oh, and let's not forget that it's in the best interest of our German friends too... ~;))
“And France, Britain and the US didn't succumb to totalitarianism” France wasn’t so far (La cagoule) and February 1934. And in 1940, they took their chance.
But yes, France didn’t succombe. ~:)
I happen to feel that Germany came to the aid of an ally in accordance with her treaty obligations just as France did. The invasion of Belgium makes for a good counter argument though
Well, yes and no.
The assassination of the heir of the Austro-Hungarian throne in Sarajevo happened the 28th of June 1914 in Sarajevo.
The 4th of July, the Austrians got proofs of Serbian intervention (in providing the weapons and ammunition) to the killers/terrorists/patriots, depending from which side you look.
The 5th, the Germans told the Austrians that Germany will be stay faithful side by side to the Austro-Hungarian Empire.
The 23rd, a note is given to the Serbian government, which is willing to accept the conditions. However, the tsar, Nicolas II, informed the Serbs that he will help them and even started the preparation for the war. So, the Serbs refused the ultimatum and mobilised.
Vienna declared war to Serbia (by telegram) the 28th. The same day, Russia obtained from France the insurance than Paris will be with St Petersburg in case of war. The day before, Nicolas II had met the French President Raymond Poincarre.
The Germans suddenly realised what was happening (the Kaiser was yachting) and asked the Tsar to do nothing irreversible…
The 30th, the bombardment of a Serbian fort by the Austro-Hungarians pushed Nicolas to mobilise…
The 1st of August, France mobilised. The 2nd, in a last attempt to save the situation, the French troops received the order to withdraw from the German border (around 10 km). But all was lost and this same date the 44 Regiment of Infantry faced the first German incursion. The caporal Jules Andre Peugeot and the lieutenant Camille Mayer become officially the first victims on this side of the war.
The 3rd, Germany declared war to France (after having declared war to Russia).
With the implementation of the Schlieffen plan, the German had to cross Belgium. In doing that, they action the English-Belgium Agreement signed in 1831 (which was designed against the French) and the 4th of August, Great Britain declared war to Germany…
So, in one hand, we can consider Nicolas II as the real instigator of the war. On another hand, without the active support of Germany, had the Austro-Hungarians so keen to declare war against Serbia…
The logic of military obligation (mobilisation before the enemy) and the new technology made the thing which needed months few years before just working within days. You have to notice that all the plans of mobilisation perfectly worked…
In my opinion, Germany was responsible of following. The pre-emptive strike against France had also logic. The war against France was quiet inevitable. But, I think, it was the invasion of Belgium which horrified the so-called civilised world. That what Germany paid at the end. If you read the speach of George Clemenceau (French Prime Minister, the Father of the Victory, or the Tiger, as nick names) he referred to the arrogance of the Junkers casts, this certitude they had they could conquer the world without any moral problems…
That is what made Germany guilty and responsible, to the eyes of the Allies.
Nice post.
Louis VI the Fat
08-31-2005, 23:34
“And France, Britain and the US didn't succumb to totalitarianism” France wasn’t so far (La cagoule) and February 1934. And in 1940, they took their chance.
But yes, France didn’t succombe. ~:)Oh so true. It was close. Very close. We don't need to have any illusions or glorifying myths about it.
Around us, one by one, they did sink into fascism: Italy, Germany, Spain. 'Contre nous, de la tyrannie'
But in the end, we didn't. In 1940, it was a democratic France that fought against the onslaught of tyranny. Which makes me proud.
(And to think our Anglo friends think the 22th of may 1940 is painful, when the real disgrace and dishonour is the 'Régime de Vichy')
L’etendart sanglant etait leve, for sure. In Spain on the Republic, and after on the Spanish Refugees parked in the beaches. But the honour was with l’Armee des Ombres and the minority of French who refused to surrender.
Ou je meurs renait la Patrie.
Adrian II
09-02-2005, 00:35
Ou je meurs renait la Patrie.:bow:
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.