WHY did WWII have to go down the way it did? (colonies, Asians)

[Linda_d]

Originally Posted by ThePage

Germany might rise again

I'm not sure if that's a common in fear in Europe today, but it certainly was a very real fear at the time of German reunification.

[Thulsa]

Originally Posted by LookingForAChange

I've been doing a lot of research on WWII lately and I can't exactly figure out WHY the Allied and Axis powers couldn't come to a reasonable and peaceful compromise before so much bloodshed took place. What is your understanding and viewpoint on why war had to commence and why so many countries had to get involved?

Several people have asked you to read Mein Kampf.
English translations are free and can be downloaded from several places.
I have read much of it. Almost everything you need to know about the European part of WWII war is in there. Until you have read that you are wasting everyone's time so stop bothering us until you have done that.

Also, as for the USA getting involved in the European war, read this interview with Goering.
This is a German's point of view, not an Americans.
Lost Prison Interview with Hermann Goring: The Reichsmarschall's Revelations

Nowhere in there does he blame the USA as being a cause of WWII.
Also, Germany did not have bad feeling against the USA regarding reparations payments because the USA was loaning them the money to make their payments to France and Great Britain.

There are many more sources written by Germans before and after WWII explaining their intentions.
if you don't want to read the Allies point of view, then read the Germans.

- - - - - - -
As for the WWII in the Pacific, that one is 99% Japan's fault. They had been planning it for a long time, they started it, and they dragged the USA into it with the blunder of attacking Pearl Harbor.

A case can be made that WWII in the Pacific actually began with the Japanese invasion of Manchuria in 1931. A case can be made that Japan was just continuing what the European colonial powers were doing, and that is true, and that is also called "starting a war".

Because there was little reaction from the rest of the world at the Manchuria invasion, most people place the beginning of the Pacific war at 1937 due to Japan's full-scale invasion of China, an invasion that went well at first but soon stalled when the troops went inland.
Japan blamed their inability to pacify all of China upon the USA and Great Britain. Their belief was that China was being supplied through the border countries such as French Indo-China, and this was true, but that wasn't the reason they could not complete their conquest of China. That problem was that China is a huge country, and they were fighting back in every way that they could.

The solution, they concluded, was to remove the Western countries from the area surrounding China.
Militarily speaking, this made sense, if they could pull it off without getting the USA involved.
There was only one way to get the USA involved - a direct attack on the USA, and that's what happened.

In fact, the USA had been supplying a great deal of the supplies that Japan needed for their war effort, but after what happened in Nanking and the invasion of Indo-China they were going too far, so the USA fully stopped supplying oil and metals them in 1941.

This was almost four years after the full-on invasion of China that the USA had been supplying Japan.
I cannot see that in any way the USA could be blamed for refusing to continue to support Japan's war effort. However, the USA also froze Japan's bank accounts and disallowed their use of the Panama canal.
That may have hurt, but it was not an act of war.
Keep in mind that the USA was not blockading Japan; the USA was simply stopping their support of the Japanese war machine. That is certainly a legitimate action for any country to take.

[danielj72]

I cannot believe some of the stuff I am reading. Is the OP really suggesting that Nazi Germany could be reasoned with?? He is suggesting that the "west" has twisted the story in some way and really is responsible for the war. Then he suggest that Louis Farakan might have the answer? I am speechless. I thought the causes of WW2 were well known by all, both east and west. Even the Germans and the Japanese admit that they are responsible for the war. WW2 is the best example of a war being good vs evil in all of history. No one in history comes close to the evil of Hitler. Its incredibly sad that someone challenges this.

[Felix C]

I have to admit I am a bit intrigued as to what view of WW2 is being presented by Louis Farakan and the other fellow the OP mentioned. I might have a chuckle for the day.

[80skeys]

Mod cut: Quoted post deleted.

The only thing up for debate about the Holocaust are the numbers. Was it millions? How did they calculate these numbers, how many were directly killed in concentration camps, versus how many died from other causes indirectly. Maybe it was or wasn't 6 million that were flat out killed in the camps. But the fact is, it happened and it was a large number. The people who were in charge of Germany, Hitler and others, had written publicly about the need to exterminate certain races in Europe - Jews, the Slavic races, and others were on their list. This was a conscious part of their philosophy even before war started and they published books about this sort of thing.

[80skeys]

Originally Posted by Linda_d

Nor hardly. The cause of the war in Europe was Hitler's territorial ambitions, not his pact with Stalin. He always intended to take out the USSR, and the pact with Stalin was only a ploy he used so that Germany could deal with France and Britain.

Indeed, this very same ploy was considered by Germany 20 years earlier, prior to the start of WWI. Their prime objective was to take out France at that time as well. They wanted to avoid bringing Britain or Russia into the War, they offered concessions to Britain and to Russia both. They wanted to delay any involvement from Russia until they had conquered France, and then, regardless of any agreement they might have struck with Russia, they had planned to return to the Eastern Front and invade Russia at that time. The only allies Germany has had was Germany itself. They didn't care about anybody else, they made and broke pacts with other countries as it suited their own needs. According to Barbara Tuchman's "The Guns of August" (an excellent book), Germany has had ambitions of conquering Europe since as far back as the mid-1800s.

[jackmccullough]

Originally Posted by 80skeys

The only thing up for debate about the Holocaust are the numbers. Was it millions? How did they calculate these numbers, how many were directly killed in concentration camps, versus how many died from other causes indirectly. Maybe it was or wasn't 6 million that were flat out killed in the camps. But the fact is, it happened and it was a large number. The people who were in charge of Germany, Hitler and others, had written publicly about the need to exterminate certain races in Europe - Jews, the Slavic races, and others were on their list. This was a conscious part of their philosophy even before war started and they published books about this sort of thing.

Correction: the only real question is how many millions.

[LookingForAChange]

This thread has actually summed up my point quite well as to why American history can't be relied upon. Here you guys stand on your high horses for the genocide that Hitler committed while justifying and/or sweeping under the rug the atomic bomb that the U.S. dropped on innocent Japanese men, women, and children. The U.S. has no less of a tainted past than Hitler's regime, regardless of what you people would like to tell yourselves....

[Felix C]

Of course there was concern for the tens of thousands of U.S. servicemen who would be casualties. Some estimates are higher. A country would be stupid to consider their adversary in place of their own countrymen when making military decisions.

[Dd714]

Originally Posted by LookingForAChange

This thread has actually summed up my point quite well as to why American history can't be relied upon. Here you guys stand on your high horses for the genocide that Hitler committed while justifying and/or sweeping under the rug the atomic bomb that the U.S. dropped on innocent Japanese men, women, and children. The U.S. has no less of a tainted past than Hitler's regime, regardless of what you people would like to tell yourselves....

It sums up your ignorance of history. There is no comparison to the acts that Hitler (and the Japanese Army) did to occupied provinces and surrendered people trying to reclaim peace vs. what an atomic bombing did to a nation still engaged in total war.

If we dropped an atomic bomb after Japan or Germany had surrendered, then your argument would have merit. What we did instead was help rebuild these two countries, including economic and humanitarian aid.