some causes of ww2

[klhbekool]

I don't think WW2 was preventable even if the armistice had been signed using Wilson's 14 points. Japan was looking to dominate Asia, Italy wanted to restore an empire and its pride, Stalin wanted Poland and Eastern Europe, France and Germany had scores to settle. In my opinion so or later one of these nations would have provoked a war that would have stated out as regional but it would have triggered a broader war anyway.

[Widell]

The whole situation between the two WW's was complex and many factors contributed to the whole disaster. Claiming a single factor was responsible does not make sense. Will war(s) make a few people filthy rich? Hell yes! Will this drive very creative ways to make sure the revenue streams are kept open for as long as possible. Same answer!

[06 Maestro]

Well, I'd dispute this since there doesn't seem to ever have been a "good treaty". Conflict in Europe was endemic. The treaty of Versailles was the first attempt to get away from the early modern model that won a war, took a province and a few million currency, maybe even demanded troops for some other venture, and then left it.

I agree that there was not a long history of "good" treaties, but that the time for playing petty games were coming to an end-a real peace treaty was in order. The Treaty of Versailles would compare to one of the most unjust set of demands ever forced upon a nation.

Massive reparations were demanded which destroyed the economy, loss of certain provinces which would not work in the long run (along with other border creations in Europe that were seriously faulty), the permanent limitations on German military which would leave it defenseless for all posterity, and the acceptance of responsibility for causing the bloodiest war ever.

The '"negotiations" were ongoing while the Allied blockade remained in force for over 8 months. Germany was being starved to death and there was nothing they could do about it except sign the treaty-as they were completely defenseless after the armistice. I suspect that had the future treaty been known to Germany before the armistice in November of 1918, the war would have continued for some time.

IMO, some reasonable reparations could have been demanded, Alsace and Lorraine returned to France, perhaps the little swath of land going to Denmark. The biggest thing that could have been done to create a "peace" would have been to invite Germany into the new League of Nations in a primary office-equal to France with some good diplomatic language addressing the causes of the Great war and and a desire that it should never happen again.

As it was, Germany was alienated, raped, insulted, and arguably, swindled, There could be no doubt that such a 'peace" treaty was fraudulent and would (very likely)lead to another war.

As a second war would have a different situation altogether, there is no point in comparing the events of the two capitulations. It was not carved in stone that Germany would be led by a fanatical national socialist desiring to create a massive empire in Europe. The things that happened in WW2 changed all the rules-changed the whole world.
It is not reasonable to think that the actions of 1946 would have been applicable to 1918-vastly different situations a world apart.

[IronDuke_slith]

ORIGINAL: Doggie

You fools.[8|]

It was robots from the future. It's always been robots from the future. They're everywhere. Have you ever seen one? No, of course not; that's how sneaky they are.

Well, you've certainly changed...

Last time we debated the start of WWII, you claimed it was Clinton's fault...

You'll be giving Democrats a free pass on global warming next...

[;)]

[Doggie]

ORIGINAL: Widell

Will war(s) make a few people filthy rich? Hell yes! Will this drive very creative ways to make sure the revenue streams are kept open for as long as possible. Same answer!

If there's one thing we've learned from World War II, it's that militaristic fascist regimes are really no threat to anyone. it's better to spend all your money on welfare for third world immigrants who hate your guts, especially when you got stupid capitalists who will pick up the tab for your national defense.

In te unlikely event that some homical maniac in some third world cesspool actually acts on the never ending threats to make the earth run red with western blood, a stongly
worded letter of protest from the U.N. will usually sort it out.


So you're right; diplomacy and tolerance is the only reason Scandinavia isn't a province of some Stalinist style European Union. Capitalist arms merchants had noting to do with it.

[Doggie]

ORIGINAL: IronDuke



Well, you've certainly changed...

Last time we debated the start of WWII, you claimed it was Clinton's fault...

You'll be giving Democrats a free pass on global warming next...

[;)]

Clinton is a cigar abusing robot from the future, but he arrived too late to surrender in world war II. There is no such thing as Global warming, and your old mate EUbanana misses you. None of the other members of my British forum have the stomach to even try and defend the current government.

[7th Somersets]

I suspect that had the future treaty been known to Germany before the armistice in November of 1918, the war would have continued for some time.

Yes because, of course the German land army was still capable of fighting and holding on??? You should read a few books on the 100 days...

[stuman]

I started WW2. I did not mean to, it was an accident, but there it is. I appologize and will do my best not to let it happen again.

[IronDuke_slith]

ORIGINAL: IronDuke



Well, you've certainly changed...

Last time we debated the start of WWII, you claimed it was Clinton's fault...

You'll be giving Democrats a free pass on global warming next...

[;)]

ORIGINAL: Doggie
Clinton is a cigar abusing robot from the future, but he arrived too late to surrender in world war II.

I remember this as more like the charge I used to be asked to answer.

There is no such thing as Global warming,

I recall this one as well. Elite liberal scientists collectively conspiring to scare monger the red states into parting with research dollars or something.

and your old mate EUbanana misses you.

I doubt that.

None of the other members of my British forum have the stomach to even try and defend the current government.

I don't recall any of them ever did originally so it should be no surprise they don't now. Either way, it was really just mutual broadsides of abuse (generally pre-emptive) towards the end so I'm sure it is a better place for my leaving.

I wish everyone the very best.

[axisandallies]

ORIGINAL: Doggie

Here's some more "intellectual discussion" from your source

Both Biblical prophecy and the Illuminati plan state that Israel is the key. The Third World War is planned to begin when Israel goes to war against her Arab enemies. Then, and only then, will all the other elements begin to occur and they will do so in rapid succession. The plan is to have one disaster following another in such rapid succession that, before people can mentally and emotionally handle one disastrous news event, they will be hit with another. It is also accurate to say that until ALL of the elements for WW3 are in place, the plan will not commence.

While it would be naive to suggest a specific timeline for the events leading up to and including World War 3, we do know that the plans for World War 3 are well advanced, and our leaders involved in this secret plan are waiting only for the right signal before all-out war begins.

We are in the last stages of the preparation to so globalize the world that the Masonic New Age Christ (Antichrist) can appear to receive all the political and economic power of the world's rulers. This is the Illuminati plan and Biblical prophecy (Revelation 17:12-17).

That's right, the Jews and the "illuminati", along with the Masons and the Kiwanis Club are secretly planning Armageddon, just so they can make money!!

Get help. [8|] It's going to be "free" soon enough, so why not take advantage of it.

LOL, thanks I needed that!!![:D]

[06 Maestro]

ORIGINAL: 7th Somersets

I suspect that had the future treaty been known to Germany before the armistice in November of 1918, the war would have continued for some time.

Yes because, of course the German land army was still capable of fighting and holding on??? You should read a few books on the 100 days...

I have my considerable library-and have certainly read elsewhere. I am well aware of the fact that Germany was in a rather hopeless position-unless something broke the alliance against them.
My previous statement is still quite correct. If the German Army had withdrawn to the frontier, and began planing for a defense on the Rhine, the war would have gone on indefinitely. Also, it is possible that the U.S. for one, would have lost interest in the war had such a treaty been known as the primary reason for its continuation. The food situation in Germany could not have been any worse than what actually transpire for the first 8 months of peace.

As far as the moral of the German military is concerned; had such stipulations of a future peace treaty been known to the average soldier, he certainly would have been more prone to fight on.

[06 Maestro]

ORIGINAL: Doggie




If there's one thing we've learned from World War II, it's that militaristic fascist regimes are really no threat to anyone. it's better to spend all your money on welfare for third world immigrants who hate your guts, especially when you got stupid capitalists who will pick up the tab for your national defense.

In te unlikely event that some homical maniac in some third world cesspool actually acts on the never ending threats to make the earth run red with western blood, a stongly
worded letter of protest from the U.N. will usually sort it out.

LOL-excellent!

[Lützow]

ORIGINAL: IronDuke

To really end Franco/British-German conflict took arrangements after the second world war, that forced the Germans to accept a new model of Government and occupied the country for forty years. It also took a new enemy that the Germans feared more than the Franco/British.

The underlying issue was the competition for European hegemony between UK and Germany. Something which began at late 19th century and lasted till both nations got unified in a common alliance. The Franco/German conflict was already enclosed at that time.

[Alfred]

ORIGINAL: 06 Maestro

ORIGINAL: 7th Somersets

I suspect that had the future treaty been known to Germany before the armistice in November of 1918, the war would have continued for some time.

Yes because, of course the German land army was still capable of fighting and holding on??? You should read a few books on the 100 days...

I have my considerable library-and have certainly read elsewhere. I am well aware of the fact that Germany was in a rather hopeless position-unless something broke the alliance against them.
My previous statement is still quite correct. If the German Army had withdrawn to the frontier, and began planing for a defense on the Rhine, the war would have gone on indefinitely. Also, it is possible that the U.S. for one, would have lost interest in the war had such a treaty been known as the primary reason for its continuation. The food situation in Germany could not have been any worse than what actually transpire for the first 8 months of peace.

As far as the moral of the German military is concerned; had such stipulations of a future peace treaty been known to the average soldier, he certainly would have been more prone to fight on.

Even assuming that a fighting withdrawal (without incurring massive loses of both men and materiel) to the Rhine was possible, and that is actually a big if, there would have been absolutely no spare combat effective German units (grade A, B or even C grade) left to meet the 50 Italian divisions which were being readied for the 1919 campaign in southern Germany via Austria. Then of course there would have also have been the allied units from Salonika which could have moved up through Hungary to also strike at Germany. There there would also be the issue of how the German authorities would have been able to neutralise the German Soviets.

Alfred

[06 Maestro]

ORIGINAL: Alfred

ORIGINAL: 06 Maestro

ORIGINAL: 7th Somersets



Yes because, of course the German land army was still capable of fighting and holding on??? You should read a few books on the 100 days...

I have my considerable library-and have certainly read elsewhere. I am well aware of the fact that Germany was in a rather hopeless position-unless something broke the alliance against them.
My previous statement is still quite correct. If the German Army had withdrawn to the frontier, and began planing for a defense on the Rhine, the war would have gone on indefinitely. Also, it is possible that the U.S. for one, would have lost interest in the war had such a treaty been known as the primary reason for its continuation. The food situation in Germany could not have been any worse than what actually transpire for the first 8 months of peace.

As far as the moral of the German military is concerned; had such stipulations of a future peace treaty been known to the average soldier, he certainly would have been more prone to fight on.

Even assuming that a fighting withdrawal (without incurring massive loses of both men and materiel) to the Rhine was possible, and that is actually a big if, there would have been absolutely no spare combat effective German units (grade A, B or even C grade) left to meet the 50 Italian divisions which were being readied for the 1919 campaign in southern Germany via Austria. Then of course there would have also have been the allied units from Salonika which could have moved up through Hungary to also strike at Germany. There there would also be the issue of how the German authorities would have been able to neutralise the German Soviets.

Alfred

Quite true-the deal maker was going to come from the south eventually-and not too long. The western Armies were actually preparing to demolish infrastructure in the Rhineland when the armistice was announced. It would have taken the TE forces many months to be able to strike at the Rhine River line. The German Army would have been ready.

Perhaps I should restate my position; Germany would have been much more inclined to fight on had they known of the contents of the treaty they would end up with. Barring some miracle, they would have been defeated within a year.
Miracles do happen in war sometimes.

[Hertston]

ORIGINAL: Lützow

The underlying issue was the competition for European hegemony between UK and Germany. Something which began at late 19th century and lasted till both nations got unified in a common alliance. The Franco/German conflict was already enclosed at that time.

Hmm.. not sure about that. Britain never sought hegemony in Europe. It's concern was denying it to anybody else in order to prevent the possibility of anyone becoming powerful enough to challenge its naval supremacy, and hence trade links to and ultimately control of the Empire.

[Lützow]

ORIGINAL: Hertston

Hmm.. not sure about that. Britain never sought hegemony in Europe. It's concern was denying it to anybody else in order to prevent the possibility of anyone becoming powerful enough to challenge its naval supremacy, and hence trade links to and ultimately control of the Empire.

I do agree and maybe hegemony was the wrong word, rivalry would characterize it better.