Was WW2 in Europe Justified?

[Al Khalifah]

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]

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]

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]

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]

But is this valid point because Germans didnt use chemical weapons in battlefield in WWII.

[PanzerJaeger]

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]

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]

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.

[Aenlic]

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.

[Lazul]

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]

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.

[PanzerJaeger]

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.

[Meneldil]

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]

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 ???

Give me your sources and I bash the man who wrote them

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

[Brenus]

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]

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]

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.

[Husar]

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]

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]

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 ???

Give me your sources and I bash the man who wrote them

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

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]

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]

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.

[Brenus]

“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]

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]

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

[Tricon]

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]

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'.

[Papewaio]

Hi Red, Havn't seen you posting for awhile?

What have you been up to?

[Ser Clegane]

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]

Maybe some = possibly a minority

It is not a blanket statement.