Was WW2 in Europe Justified?

[Shaka_Khan]

...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.
I agree that the Treaty of Versailles didn't help in preventing a war. Europe would've been better off without WWII.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

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]

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]

Warnings Level: 4

[Strike For The South]

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

[Redleg]

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...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]

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...

[PanzerJaeger]

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]

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.

[Redleg]

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]

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]

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.

[Phatose]

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]

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!

No, this war was about power, resources and influence for both sides.

[PanzerJaeger]

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..

[ichi]

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

[Xiahou]

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.

[PanzerJaeger]

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]

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]

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.

[Redleg]

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]

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.

[Lazul]

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...

Now how often do I agree with Dave? well atleast 1 time now hehe

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]

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.

[Idaho]

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]

Your ability to look at things from a different point of view is admirable PJ.

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.”)

[Meneldil]

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]

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]

You could say one good thing happened because of WW2....the London Slums were cleared, ergo the war is justified :)

[Red Harvest]

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.