WHY did WWII have to go down the way it did? (war, England)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
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?
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?
For starters have you studied the "Munich Agreement "of 1938?
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?
WWI really didn't succeed in hashing out the problems that the nations in Europe had with each other.
The interwar period was very unstable, with new nation's being drawn from the defunct Ottoman and Austro-Hungarian empires, strange alliances, and a real bending over backwards to stop another world war.
Had the allies taken a stand in Czechoslovakia, the war could have been kept local.
That only explains the nuts and bolts of it but doesn't really answer the why question.
Quote:
Originally Posted by I_Like_Spam
WWI really didn't succeed in hashing out the problems that the nations in Europe had with each other.
The interwar period was very unstable, with new nation's being drawn from the defunct Ottoman and Austro-Hungarian empires, strange alliances, and a real bending over backwards to stop another world war.
Had the allies taken a stand in Czechoslovakia, the war could have been kept local.
I knew that WWII was a continuation because of WWI not being hashed out properly, but that also can be said for other wars that have been fought and that haven't had a continuation.
Between 1918 and 1938, it was a breather for the depressions, and a rearming. Germany collapsed economically and wanted a strongman leader, ended up with Hitler. Russia had Stalin, Italy had Mussolini. The Japanese were coming out of their isolationist period, but still had the extreme martial code from the feudal times, with the generals effectively running Japan.
Conversely, the French were still focused on WWI warfare, the US was a generation behind in weaponry, with much of the modern military still on the drawing board, and England was a shadow of itself, with the Empire on the edge of collapse.
Power abhors a vacuum, and Germany et al used the weakness of France and England to run rampant across Europe and the Far East. If Germany had stopped at Europe and not attacked Russia, it could have been a totally different story in the outcome of WWII.
a madman with nationalistic delusions gained a following that enabled him to come to power in Germany, and
a junta of militarists in Japan stoked nationalistic fanaticism there.
I'm not sure that short of going to war against both Germany and Japan earlier that any of the countries that eventually formed the Allies could have prevented WW II. Appeasement certainly did not deter Hitler. Neither did signing a non-aggression pact with him. Or even being his ally, as the Italians found out.
The generals in Tokyo weren't to be stopped short of war, either, since they considered eastern Asia as Japan's rightful empire, and were not going to allow Europeans or Americans to thwart their plans.
You can not reason, ie, come to a "peaceful compromise" with a madman or with fanatics, and the only solution short of war in the 1930s meant abject surrender.
a madman with nationalistic delusions gained a following that enabled him to come to power in Germany, and
a junta of militarists in Japan stoked nationalistic fanaticism there.
I'm not sure that short of going to war against both Germany and Japan earlier that any of the countries that eventually formed the Allies could have prevented WW II. Appeasement certainly did not deter Hitler. Neither did signing a non-aggression pact with him. Or even being his ally, as the Italians found out.
The generals in Tokyo weren't to be stopped short of war, either, since they considered eastern Asia as Japan's rightful empire, and were not going to allow Europeans or Americans to thwart their plans.
You can not reason, ie, come to a "peaceful compromise" with a madman or with fanatics, and the only solution short of war in the 1930s meant abject surrender.
That's the western/Americanized version of why it occurred. But what I'm looking for is the actual reason, not reasons coming from someone who wants to put all the blame on Germany and Japan.
The German and Japanese plans for the national empires were based on conquering neighboring territory occupied by lesser "races", killing or enslaving them in the process, and/or resettling the land with their own superior kind and claiming all the natural resources for themselves. Those "lesser" people included Jews and slavs in Europe and anybody who wasn't Japanese in Asia. Real sane, rational people always see the way to prosperity lies in butchering or enslaving everybody else.
Since you're such an expert on the Germans and Japanese, why don't you tell us who forced the Japanese to invade Manchuria in 1931? Who forced the Germans to invade Poland in 1939? Who forced the Germans to invade the Soviet Union in 1941?
That's the western/Americanized version of why it occurred. But what I'm looking for is the actual reason, not reasons coming from someone who wants to put all the blame on Germany and Japan.
New type of history must be being taught nowadays. The evil West putting down the expansionist ambitions of Nazi Germany and militarist Japan. Yeah, evil capitalists.
You serious bro? What are some of the books you have read in the "lot" of research you have been doing?
New type of history must be being taught nowadays. The evil West putting down the expansionist ambitions Nazi Germany and militarist Japan. Yeah, evil capitalists.
You serious bro? What are some of the books you have read in the "lot" of research you have been doing?
I've been listening to pure and unbiased views from people such as Khalid Muhammad and Louis Farrakhan. All I'm saying is the U.S./West has a long history of trying to elevate their own importance, demonize others, and paint themselves as saints. So forgive me if I take a lot what I read from Americans with a grain of salt.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
