Was WW2 in Europe Justified?

[Red Peasant]

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]

I take exception to the use of the plural in the context of this forum

Lol...and I'm in trouble again already

[Ser Clegane]

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]

I know - hence my limiting reference to this forum and the smiley

You revisionist you.

[Papewaio]

I know - hence my limiting reference to this forum and the smiley

Good point.

[Slyspy]

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]

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.

[Zalmoxis]

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?

[Slyspy]

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.

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]

Ya know what? I promised myself to ignore this BS, after my last post - and PJ's personal attack on me.
But, I can't.
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. Then again, some will do anything to get out of doing their homework.

[Duke of Gloucester]

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]

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.

[Aenlic]

Then again, some will do anything to get out of doing their homework.

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.

[Brenus]

"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

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.

[PanzerJaeger]

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.

[PanzerJaeger]

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]

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.

[Brenus]

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]

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... )

[Brenus]

“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.

[Tricon]

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]

“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')

[Brenus]

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]

Ou je meurs renait la Patrie.