Was WW2 in Europe Justified?

[PanzerJaeger]

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]

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]

Ah yes because two wrongs make a right and attacking nations because they did something unfair to you is completely justified 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]

Ah yes because two wrongs make a right and attacking nations because they did something unfair to you is completely justified 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

I might as well erase my own post. Strike for the South indeed.

[Redleg]

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]

If the war went long enough they would have been Justified in nuking every German city.

[RabidGibbon]

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.

[Beirut]

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]

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.

If you are actually making the arguement that Germany was justified with its agression, then I'm very dissappointed.

[Papewaio]

If Germany was justified then so why Saddam in invading Kuwait...

==== My editor in chief said to change it or get a new job ===

[Steppe Merc]

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]

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...

[Kaiser of Arabia]

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.

[Redleg]

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]

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]

Do you mean "If Germany was justified, then so was Saddam in invading Kuwaitt"? I didn't understand your meaning...

Whoops... need more coffee.

[sharrukin]

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]

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.

[Redleg]

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_]

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]

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.

[Beirut]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

your correct,i believe, which is why Germanies allies were called the axis of evil.....

[Redleg]

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.

[Csargo]

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.

[sharrukin]

The treaty of Versaille might justify a different war, but it doesn't justify World War two.