The causes of the Second World War

[Dante]

Decided that it was probably best to start a new topic for this, since it really isn't related to this thread, where the matter arose. Now the political ideals of nazism, as well as the behaviour of the allies prior to World War Two, have already been debated at length. There are several topics about them already. Which is why this topic is not about them. In the interests of bringing new material to the argument, as well as a desire to focus more on history rather than ideology, I thought that a new topic was required. And since this discussion is hopefully going to be historical as opposed to political or philosophical, I'm placing it in General.

Not wanting to start an off topic thead, but to my point that history varies based off the "author who wrote it" (and to Dante's counterpoint)

http://www.rpfuller.com/gcse/history/6.html

http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/causesofWW2.htm

Not listed was "frances harsh treatment of the germans" Though I'm sure that didn't help matters.

Georges Clemenceau of France had one very simple belief - Germany should be brought to its knees so that she could never start a war again.

This reflected the views of the French public but it was also what Clemenceau himself believed in. He had seen the north-east corner of France destroyed and he determined that Germany should never be allowed to do this again. "The Tiger" did not have to adapt his policies to suit the French public - the French leader and the French public both thought alike.

http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/treaty_of_versailles.htm

All of the causes of war listed in the other link (http://www.rpfuller.com/gcse/history/6.html) can be traced back to the Treaty of versailles, which was heavily influenced by French (and British) desire for retribution against Germany. France had been simmering after her defeat in the Franco-Prussian war anyway; after World War One she was murderous. The French desire was to see Germany crippled beyond repair, so that it would never threaten France again.

The conditions of the Treaty were, in the eyes of some, extremely harsh on the defeated Germany. She lost all overseas colonies, a great deal of land, valuable resources, a large percentage of her military, and a great deal of her autonomy. This created intense resentment of the outside world, and led people to turn to extreme political ideologies, both left and right wing. It was this resentment that fuelled Hitler's rise to power using the Jews as scapegoats. It was the resentment against the outside world that saw the rise of German expansionism, leading to the Anschluss, the invasion of the Sudetenland, the remilitarisation of the Rhineland, the occupation of Czechoslovakia, and the eventual invasion of Poland; all of which was seen as justifiable reparation by many in Germany.

The Treaty also prompted British and American behaviour. The British government appeased Hitler because her leaders, privately at least, believed that Germany had been hard done by after World War One. The Americans wished to pursue a policy of isolation from Europe, seeing the Treaty as their legacy along with the League of Nations. These two attitudes also effectively prevented France from blocking German goals, because she had no support.

I'm rather hoping that there will be some discussion here, seeing as professional historians have been arguing about it for decades. My original argument in the PRP thread was based on the belief that the causes of war are always the same, no matter your perspective. German, French, American and British historians should all acknowledge that the Treaty of Versailles was one of the primary causes of the Second World War. But some may lay the blame for the war in different places. France, for making the Treaty so harsh. Britain, for making it too lenient. Germany, for reacting so badly to it. America, for buggering off and abandoning the Leage of Nations.

[incidentally, the actual trigger for the war was the German invasion of Poland. In the original topic, this would have been the parallel for the North Korean invasion of South Korea. The trigger is not the same as the cause.]

[Apollyon]

I blame Eve, apple-snatcher and bringer of Sin and Death into the world.

[erjin999]

It is not our place to judge, apoo, but Gods.

[Andrew]

Wasn't there an assasination in Italy that also didn't help the stability of Europe?

[Apollyon]

It is not our place to judge, apoo, but Gods.

That's flawed on so many levels. But I'm not about to turn this into a religious debate. ;)

[Kiyouta]

Dante, the economic situation in Germany from 1929 was dire, due to the Wall Street crash, which caused nearly all foreign investors into Germany to pull out. There was major hyper-inflation; money was not worth the paper it was printed on. This was the main reason for the Nazi Party winning the general election. The resentment, explicitly in the context you mention, should be associated with Hitler and the Nazi Party, rather than the people of Germany. There was relatively little anti-senitism at the time, and it was only because the Nazis included it as 'part of the package' so to speak, that it grew. Blaming everything on the Jews was an easy answer.

When times are tough, the election of extremist parties in a democracy is common, and the Nazis won the general election because they represented law and order - something which was certainly not a reality in the country at the time. You only have to look to the attempted Communist revolt in Munich to prove this.

[Dante]

There were revolts from both the far left and the far right, but on the topic of the 1929 crash...

Germany was hit even worse than the rest of the world, perhaps even worse than America. The USA had loaned a great deal to Germany in order to aid rebuilding, and with the crash they started to demand their money back. Germany of course could not repay, it was a war-torn country filled with internal strife. Since German stability at that time was almost exclusively supported by the American economy, the German government decided to print massive amounts of paper money, which caused the hyperinflation that the era was so infamous for. This made life difficult for everybody.

Nevertheless, the German economy would have been healthier to begin with if the Treaty of Versailles had been less harsh. Germany would have possessed more valuable resources to minimise the setback.

[Dunenewt]

Appeasement was another cause of the War.  If Neville-bloody-Chaimberlain had done something about the remilitarization of the Rhineland or and annexation of the Sudetenland (sp?) then none of it would have happened.  When Hitler took over in 1933 even Czechslovakia had a bigger army than Hitler.  Basically most of Europe was too scared to risk a war by stopping the fledgling Dritten Reich when they could have, and the the only thing which finally got them to was the trigger of the World War Two (if that was the real start of WW2): the invasion of Poland by Nazi forces in September 1939.

[Dante]

Yup, covered in first post. British opinion was sympathetic to Germany because many believed the Treaty had been too harsh. That and nobody wanted another war...

[Caid Ivik]

Versailles Treaty was surely a cause for that war, but why not go further? Treaty was caused by lost (altough not fully) first war. This war was caused by expansion of russian satellites on the Balkan. This was a problem, because it was a zone of interest for Austria-Hungary, which started the war. Germany and France used this war as a rematch for 1872, but this was no cause.

[Dante]

Going back really really far, it can be traced back to German unification under the guidance of Otto von Bismark. Which in turn can be traced back to the invading armies of France spreading democratic ideals throughout Europe after the French Revolution. It's all Napoleon's fault!

[Caid Ivik]

Napoleon attacked only to cease strengthening of Austria as well  ;D