Treaty of Versailles caused WW2

[IchabodPlain]

Maybe this has been brought up before,

Is it just me - or does anyone else bothered by this kind of deterministic, cause and effect look at history? The idea that ONE single event caused another. As far as I've ever been able to reason with anyone who is knowledgeable about history (as and example beyond a someone who is a teacher, I have a friend who is very well-versed in WW1 & WW2 era politics and military history, especially in Germany), no one can back this point. There are always least two or more factors that play into every event in history.

Don't get me wrong, the ToV played a role, but it is not the sole deciding factor.

I wasn't sure whether to put this is the Philosophy sub-forum, but I am more concerned about the simplified, superficial view of history that seems to permeate in both school, and everyday conversations.

[Gregory]

Schools are operating under a time limit; they've only got so many semesters to cover a huge amount of material. It doesn't really bother me that stuff gets simplified as a result; it's a necessary evil for covering even half of what needs to be covered.

[ddt]

Originally Posted by IchabodPlain

Is it just me - or does anyone else bothered by this kind of deterministic, cause and effect look at history?

As Gregory already said, too little time to deepen the subject. Also, I think, it's easier to work in small soundbites or slogans. Thus, lots of historic events are reduced to have only one cause. Another fine example is the Dutch rebellion of the 16th C., which is often reduced to only have a religious cause.

Originally Posted by IchabodPlain

Don't get me wrong, the ToV played a role, but it is not the sole deciding factor.

I'd even say it's not the most important role, how draconian the Versailles Treaty was and how unusual that Germany was not allowed to negotiate the terms.

I'd put as the two most important factors:

• The decision of the Entente to let the German armies get back to Germany unscathed, which enabled the "Dolchstoss" legend
• The spinelessness of the SPD to not do away with the old order, but in fact hand the real power on a platter to that same old order (e.g., the Ebert-Groener pact in November 1918). All civil servants, judges, etc. were still committed to the Reich, even without a Kaiser.

[hgc]

It's a 20 year stretch, so it's impossible to follow the trail of causes. I wonder how much of the simplified explanation of ToV causing the WWII is attributable to the fascists trumpeting the ToV as a cause of Germany's economic woes (not totally untrue) and as a reason for an expansionist response. Of course there are plenty of more proximate causes, the most obvious being the election of the Nazi majority in the Reichstag in 1933 and Hitler's rise to power. Did ToV cause that? Don't take Goebbels' word for it. Hitler was always going to pursue his expansionist agenda to the stopping point. The real question was whether Europe's other powers could have stopped him. Is the cause Chamberlain's (much talked of in recent days) appeasement in Munich in 38? Up until what point would it have been possible to reign the Nazis in? What if England and France had enforced the provisions against militarization of the Rhineland in 36? Perhaps that would have stopped him. I doubt it. What about the secret non-aggression pact with Stalin? Would Hitler have invaded Poland without it? Too many causes in the 6 years leading up to the war for me to pin significant blame on the ToV.

[Foolmewunz]

The ToV was one of many causes. And as stated already, maybe not even one of the most important causes. I also like the fact that it depends who you ask, as to just what part of the ToV caused the 2nd World War.
Nazis claim it was the harsh repayment terms and the fact that they were treated like a conquered foe ran than a valiant enemy.
American Liberals claim it was all to do with ignoring Wilson's 14 Points.
Pragmatists think (and I concur) that Germany wasn't disarmed and reorganized enough.

The nazi propaganda machine used the ToV as a focal point citing the reasons mentioned above... Combine that with the myth that the war was really a "draw", and you can hand-wave away any other causes if people aren't interesting in checking further.

It's a simplistic and convenient answer for mid-20th century European historians who'd rather blame something they had no part in than admit that the rise of Hitler and Fascism was a product of a whole new era... an era during which many of them stood by and did nothing.

As to the time limitations on teachers playing a part? This is inexcusable. Science classes have the same limitations to cover a lot during basic biology, for instance. Would it be acceptable to state something only remotely accurate in a discussion of reproduction? "Babies are made because people meet other people they are attracted to. The End." It's maybe a single factor, but they leave out all the more importing juicy parts because they don't have time? Unacceptable.

[Giraffe107]

We were taught that the ToV was one of several causes (as others have stated)- so 'not enough time' is not an excuse.

[ddt]

Originally Posted by Foolmewunz

Nazis claim it was the harsh repayment terms

An interesting comparison is how much Germany in the end had to pay in reparations, and how much France had to pay Germany after 1871. The latter sum is actually bigger, and the French pulled it off to pay it in a handful of years, ahead of schedule, without the daily complaining. I admit that the open-endedness of the Versailles reparations - the grand sum had never been pinned down - was perverse, but the payments had definitely stopped in, I think, 1930, so a couple of years before the Nazis peaked and got power.

Originally Posted by Foolmewunz

It's a simplistic and convenient answer for mid-20th century European historians who'd rather blame something they had no part in than admit that the rise of Hitler and Fascism was a product of a whole new era... an era during which many of them stood by and did nothing.

Are there professional historians who think that simplistic? I hope not.

Originally Posted by Foolmewunz

As to the time limitations on teachers playing a part? This is inexcusable. Science classes have the same limitations to cover a lot during basic biology, for instance. Would it be acceptable to state something only remotely accurate in a discussion of reproduction? "Babies are made because people meet other people they are attracted to. The End." It's maybe a single factor, but they leave out all the more importing juicy parts because they don't have time? Unacceptable.

Teachers are, of course, bound to the number of lessons they can give and what ground they have to cover. When I was in high school, that meant 2 or 3 hours a week, 4 years, to cover the whole from Sumer to post-WW2. Mostly from a European perspective, of course. I don't think my teacher taught that the ToV was the single cause, but I'm very hazy about what I learnt in school and what I read myself outside of the school curriculum

[Foolmewunz]

ddt,

I should've emphasized the lower-case h in "historian" by saying "amateur historians and politicians", which is really what I meant. Although there are numerous degreed historians who are full of crap on many topics, this isn't an area I've seen many mistakes by people in the field. They all pretty well concur that there are elements in the ToV that, properly exploited as they were, could be said to be one of the causes of, if not necessarily WWII itself, then at least of the mood that allowed the build-up to WWII.

[CFLarsen]

Originally Posted by Foolmewunz

Nazis claim it was the harsh repayment terms and the fact that they were treated like a conquered foe ran than a valiant enemy.

And a lot of other things. Whatever worked.

[soikins]

Originally Posted by IchabodPlain

Is it just me - or does anyone else bothered by this kind of deterministic, cause and effect look at history?

Nope, you are not. Nassim Nicholas Taleb explores this problem in his book "The Black Swan". He is very critical about such after the fact explanations of causality like "Treaty of Versailles caused WW2" and calls them "The narrative fallacy" - "our tendency to construct stories around facts, which in love for example may serve a purpose, but when someone begins to believe the stories and accommodate facts into the stories, they are likely to err."

Wiki on the book:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Black_Swan_%28book%29

[Tolls]

Originally Posted by CFLarsen

And a lot of other things. Whatever worked.

Quite.
Any treaty that was likely to result from the conference at Versailles would have been used by the Nazi party as a tool to get into power. Once you have created (or bought into) the myth that you didn't really lose then the whole concept of reparations is open to attack as "unfair".

And I thought that was what I was taught, but it was over 25 years ago so it's quite possible I have misremembered...

[Damien Evans]

Thought you guys might be interested in this cartoon, published in 1919: http://opal.ukc.ac.uk/cartoonx-cgi/c...f%20Versailles

[Darth Rotor]

Originally Posted by Damien Evans

Thought you guys might be interested in this cartoon, published in 1919: http://opal.ukc.ac.uk/cartoonx-cgi/c...f%20Versailles

Prescient. Thanks for that, you made my day.

To answer the OP, yes, such reductionist cause and effect pronouncements misinform more than they inform.

DR

[Almo]

Yeah, simplification in history happens. Same for science. We still teach young people about the electrons in their circular orbits. The reality is far to complex to hit 1st graders with. So over time, you're told more about what really goes on. Some people never get that far. So it is with history. It's just a problem associated with the vastness of human knowledge and how little time we have to absorb it. Funny how when I found out about the strong nuclear force it occurred to me that I had never questioned how all those positiive charges could stick together in the nucleus!

I'd rather people had the mistaken idea ToV caused WWII than not know anything at all about. At least it shows a useful lesson; excessive measures taken by victors can cause future trouble. Also, it's not entirely false; it's just not the whole picture. I can deal with that.

[Nogbad]

Originally Posted by hgc

It's a 20 year stretch, so it's impossible to follow the trail of causes. I wonder how much of the simplified explanation of ToV causing the WWII is attributable to the fascists trumpeting the ToV as a cause of Germany's economic woes (not totally untrue) and as a reason for an expansionist response. Of course there are plenty of more proximate causes, the most obvious being the election of the Nazi majority in the Reichstag in 1933 and Hitler's rise to power. Did ToV cause that? Don't take Goebbels' word for it. Hitler was always going to pursue his expansionist agenda to the stopping point. The real question was whether Europe's other powers could have stopped him. Is the cause Chamberlain's (much talked of in recent days) appeasement in Munich in 38? Up until what point would it have been possible to reign the Nazis in? What if England and France had enforced the provisions against militarization of the Rhineland in 36? Perhaps that would have stopped him. I doubt it. What about the secret non-aggression pact with Stalin? Would Hitler have invaded Poland without it? Too many causes in the 6 years leading up to the war for me to pin significant blame on the ToV.

The political mind set of the Nazis was not determined by the ToV. Just about every European country had a political wing not far from that of the Nazis. However, it might be argued that a couple things facilitated the Fascists step up to power in Germany and one of these was the grudge felt by the Germans over the ToV. The ToV did not make the Nazis but they certainly exploited a genuine anger over it. The other leg up to the Nazis was the fear of social chaos caused by hyperinflation and other social ills under the Weimar Republic.

The other great bogeymen of 1920s/30s politics was of course Communism and theories of conspiracies through global banking (the Great Depression being caused by the Market rather than any actual failing of factories or workers). We should remember that Fascists took power in Spain and Italy before Germany and were fiercely anti-communist and also protectionist. The Kings of Albania and Romania were not far from occupying similar political positions. Hitler and the Nazis took the political rhetoric further than these others but in many ways they were pushing at an open door caused by prevailing political sentiments across a swathe of Europe. It was those societies least affected from the fall out of WW1 and the revolution in Russia in 1917 that stood against the new boy on the political block, Fascism.

Another factor is that many countries including Britain and the US viewed the Soviet Union with considerable concern and a strong non-communist leader in Germany was not considered a bad thing at all (at least until it became apparent the cure was worse than the illness)

If the ToV had been handled differently and if either more continuity with the old order or a more robust new order had been set up in 1918 in Germany then perhaps the Nazis would have been a nearly party as they were in many other European countries.

My own view is that WW1 was responsible for 1917 in Russia and the subsequent rise of Fascism in Europe and that from the first bullet in August 1914 there probably wasn't much to be done to prevent the eventual fall out across the following decades.

I am happy to be contested on this though

[JoeEllison]

Originally Posted by soikins

Nope, you are not. Nassim Nicholas Taleb explores this problem in his book "The Black Swan". He is very critical about such after the fact explanations of causality like "Treaty of Versailles caused WW2" and calls them "The narrative fallacy" - "our tendency to construct stories around facts, which in love for example may serve a purpose, but when someone begins to believe the stories and accommodate facts into the stories, they are likely to err."

Wiki on the book:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Black_Swan_%28book%29

Sounds like the current problems in addressing the Bush administration... you have people rejecting any comparisons to Nazi Germany out of hand, because they dislike any "narrative" that includes those comparisons. It would be equally simplistic and wrong to claim that the Bush administration is JUST LIKE Nazi Germany. Both positions assume a simple story with superficial similarities.

[Solus]

It's a bit more complicated then Nazi propaganda as already stated. Another factor would be the great depression which has not been mentioned here. Had that not occurred the Nazis likely would not have been voted into power in the first place. The economic disaster in Germany at the time allowed demagogues like Hitler a chance that would have otherwise not existed.

I'm more curious though how war might have been averted between the U.S. and Japan. No idea on that one although I haven't read any books on internal WW2 Japanese history either.

[idunno]

The Germans were starving, humiliated,etc.
Without the ToV there would be no ascension of nazi party and its policies, though the Nazis used it as an excuse.
Its interesting that the German TV series Dresden,die Hoelle(hell) was cast all over Europe but not in the UK and USA, the countries who most like to keep the myth of the evil Germans and the Anglo American superstar saviours.

Last but not least, it is very easy to be brainwashed by people who are supposed to be cultured like some Nazis.
I dont like my native language, but when one of our most respected authors said that ours was the most beautiful language in the world, i had to fight hard with my mind to keep away the «appeal to authority» and stick to my opinion.

Now imagine you live in 1930s Germany where people were struggling and didnt know about «fallacies» and «hidden persuaders»

[Foolmewunz]

Nogbad,
Excellent post. I tend to agree if one says that WWI caused WWII. I just can't agree that the ToV was the direct cause. The ToV was just a symptom. It did nothing to address the issues that brought about WWI, so in that respect it was part of the cause.

Idunno,
What are you going on about? You're bordering on acting as a Nazi apologist; or at least in the mode of the traditional apologist for Nazi sympathizers.
Do you really believe that the appeal of the Nazis was that they were cultured? They were marginally educated lower-middle-class thugs.

[Uzzy]

I slightly disagree with you, Nogbad. The Treaty of Versailles was certainly a factor in Hitlers rise to power, and WW2, but not the most important one. I think that the Great Depression was key.

In 1928, the Nazi's polled 2.8% of the Reichstag vote. 1930 they polled 18.3%, which gave them 107 seats and made them the second largest party in the Reichstag. Interestingly, the assassination of Horst Wessel and Goebbels impressive propaganda campaign played a huge part.

Now, if the Treaty of Versailles was the main reason, why did the Germans give the Weimar republic a good decade of power, especially under Stresemann's able leadership. Only when the Great Depression kicked in were the German people willing to look at non-democratic alternatives, like the Nazi's and the communists.

I do agree with you when you say that WW1 doomed Tsarist Russia. It's often forgotten that Tsarist Russia was in quite a good state pre 1914, and rapidly improving, thanks to the work of Witte and Stolypin. But those reforms needed time to work, time denied to them by WW1. And yes, anti-communist feelings after WW1 were very high. It's also often forgotten that Britain, France and the US took part in the Russian Civil War (to a limited extent). Winston Churchill in 1919 said that 'Bolshevism must be strangled in it's cradle'.

[Nogbad]

Originally Posted by Uzzy

I slightly disagree with you, Nogbad. The Treaty of Versailles was certainly a factor in Hitlers rise to power, and WW2, but not the most important one. I think that the Great Depression was key.

In 1928, the Nazi's polled 2.8% of the Reichstag vote. 1930 they polled 18.3%, which gave them 107 seats and made them the second largest party in the Reichstag. Interestingly, the assassination of Horst Wessel and Goebbels impressive propaganda campaign played a huge part.

Now, if the Treaty of Versailles was the main reason, why did the Germans give the Weimar republic a good decade of power, especially under Stresemann's able leadership. Only when the Great Depression kicked in were the German people willing to look at non-democratic alternatives, like the Nazi's and the communists.

I do agree with you when you say that WW1 doomed Tsarist Russia. It's often forgotten that Tsarist Russia was in quite a good state pre 1914, and rapidly improving, thanks to the work of Witte and Stolypin. But those reforms needed time to work, time denied to them by WW1. And yes, anti-communist feelings after WW1 were very high. It's also often forgotten that Britain, France and the US took part in the Russian Civil War (to a limited extent). Winston Churchill in 1919 said that 'Bolshevism must be strangled in it's cradle'.

I would agree with that.

Europe was in political turmoil after WW1. There were enormous social changes taking place and the individual histories of many of the countries reflect this. It also explains how, with hindsight, a seemingly obviously evil dogma developed a stranglehold in many of the countries in central Europe and how the Germans found willing participants in most of the invaded countries. Nazism and European history of the 1920s and 1930s is not simple and there were many juggling acts performed in attempt to balance of the rising ride of Fascism and the fear that Stalin was fermenting revolution in countries like Spain and Italy.

[ddt]

Originally Posted by Uzzy

I slightly disagree with you, Nogbad. The Treaty of Versailles was certainly a factor in Hitlers rise to power, and WW2, but not the most important one. I think that the Great Depression was key.

In 1928, the Nazi's polled 2.8% of the Reichstag vote. 1930 they polled 18.3%, which gave them 107 seats and made them the second largest party in the Reichstag. Interestingly, the assassination of Horst Wessel and Goebbels impressive propaganda campaign played a huge part.

Now, if the Treaty of Versailles was the main reason, why did the Germans give the Weimar republic a good decade of power, especially under Stresemann's able leadership. Only when the Great Depression kicked in were the German people willing to look at non-democratic alternatives, like the Nazi's and the communists.

The Great Depression exacerbated the situation in Germany, especially as Germany depended heavily on US loans, but the Weimar republic was already doomed to failure before that. I venture that if the Nazis hadn't gotten the biggest share of the right-wing anti-democratic vote, other right-wing, anti-democratic figures - from the DNVP or from Stahlhelm, or other groups - would have gotten into the seat and would equally have ventured for war - sans Holocaust, but a world war anyway. I admit, that last part is a bit looking into the crystal ball .

The Weimar coalition - SPD, Zentrum and DDP - only once had a majority in the Reichstag, at the first elections, and never after that. Stresemann's party, the DVP, was not part of the democratic parties-of-the-first-hour - under his leadership the party did commit to democracy, but after his demise the whole party sank into oblivion.

The Weimar democracy never had sufficient support from the populace, and worse, the key elements in the German society were staunchly anti-democratic: teachers, the whole judicial system, industry, and above all, the army. Anti-democratic activities could be carried out with impunity: the Rathenau murder, the Kapp Putsch went unpunished, and Hitler got a symbolic punishment for his Beer Hall Putsch.

The only societal force that saved the system was the working class - see the general strike during the Kapp Putsch. Whatever support the republic had from the middle class - and Germany had a big middle class - swindled with the 1923 hyperinflation. That self-inflicted inflation, that robbed the middle class from its savings, was utterly unneeded and utterly useless (the reparations were in goldmark).

In fact, Weimar was strangled before it was even born; when faced with his own constituents doing what they had been brought up with - overthrow the old order in a revolution - Ebert chickened out and handed the real reins of power to the army to preserve the old order.

[blutoski]

I was impressed with Niall Ferguson's thesis in The War of the World: that WWI and WWII and the Japanese expansion in Asia were all one protracted war, and that the European interwar period was just a postponement of the inevitable. ie: that WWI and WWII had shared distal causes, rather than the outcome of one causing the other.

He argues that the 'world war' started with the Russo/Japanese conflict circa 1901 and ended with the ceasefire in Korea in the '50s. He emphasizes the shift from unstable old-fashioned imperial multi-ethnic states (case specimen: Austria Hungary) to more stable single-ethnic states as central to the political upheaval.

[stilicho]

Originally Posted by Almo

Yeah, simplification in history happens.

I still encounter Americans who believe that irregular militia commonly defeated British regulars in battles fought during the Revolutionary War. And many of those people have never heard of De Grasse either.

On the topic of the Treaty of Versailles: It was a treaty conceived entirely in the context of its time. It was perceptibly no more brutal nor overreaching than the Treaty of Frankfurt that concluded the Franco-Prussian War. One could even argue that it wasn't nearly as punitive as the Treaty of Paris following the Spanish-American War. Reparations were also a part of the Treaty of Portsmouth following the Russo-Japanese War.

It's instructive that Keynes wrote an entire book on the iniquities of reparations and the protectionism and poor economic policies that would certainly follow and fail. Thus, one could brightly argue that the Treaty of Versailles descended from a chain of similar agreements that Keynes predicted honestly would result in economic disaster for victors and vanquished alike.

Its importance shouldn't be diminished in the face of the Great Depression that few other than Keynes recognised would follow.

[Gene L]

That's an oversimplification and for those who want to reduce Cause and Effect to one sentence. However, it's hard to imagine any cause Hitler may have embraced that's as compelling as the (false) argument that (1) Germany didn't really lose WW I, and (2, which is more or less true) that Germany was abused by France and England in particular by the terms of that treaty.

Certainly it was a major factor, perhaps THE major factor, but no one should attribute such a complicated Effect to one single Cause. Lots of other causes in other countries: Japan, for example, and Italy, which were not Central Powers in WW I.

However, Japan felt it got screwed by the T of V, undoubtedly. Which encouraged an already-in-place militant government, led to expansionsim in the S. Pacific etc. An unchecked expansionism mixed with excessive national pride, a sure recipe for disaster. I think Japan, also felt deprived by the T o V. Italy, I haven't read much about, but the 1930s hard times in Europe did not bypass Italy. Bruised feelings of a nation (or a people, or a religion or whatever) screwed are a good coat-hanger for radicalism of any form.

The statement that the Treaty of Versailles caused WW II is like saying slavery caused the Civil War. Which basically it did. Lots of other reasons, but they ultimately boil down to that one overwhelming reason. Yes, that's oversimplified, but what can you expect from a one-sentence answer?

I would feel more comfortable hearing "the Versailles Treaty led to conditions which, taken as a whole, led to WW II."

[OlbarStein]

Btw Germany is still paying 10 mio € annual for the Young Plan.

The ToV is not the single cause for WWII but it was part in most of the decisions that lead to it. It was a reason for the small support for democracy, for the huge depression and the following social unrest before 1933.

[gumboot]

A lot of military historians are inclined to regard the European theatres of WW1 and WW2 as two stages of a single European War with a long ceasefire in between, and regard the Pacific Theatre of WW2 as a totally separate war.

I'm inclined to agree with Nogbad - the lead up to WW1 pretty much set the stage for both WW1 and WW2.

If we want to look at why WW1 didn't stop, but flared up again in 1939 as WW2, I think the primary concern is the attitude of the allies. This incorporates ToV, but it also incorporates the League of Nations. It was really, if you ask me, the attitude of (in particular) France and Great Britain, combined with the USA's distancing from Europe, that guaranteed a new war would occur. That's both the attitude immediately post war, and the attitude during the interwar period.

[gumboot]

Originally Posted by ddt

An interesting comparison is how much Germany in the end had to pay in reparations, and how much France had to pay Germany after 1871. The latter sum is actually bigger, and the French pulled it off to pay it in a handful of years, ahead of schedule, without the daily complaining.

France had to pay 5 billion gold francs, with a gold value ratio of 1 fr 9/31 g gold, giving a total of 1.4 million kg gold value.

Germany had to pay 269 billion gold marks, with a gold value ratio of 2,790 marks to 1kg gold, giving a total of 96.4 million kg gold value. This was later halved (roughly) but it still makes the reparations substantially greater by comparison.

In other words the Geman WW1 reparations were almost 70 times as high as the French Franco-Prussian reparations.

It's also worth noting that while the ToV reparations were basically arbitrary, the Treaty of Frankfurt reparations were based on the reparations Napoleon demanded after the defeat of Prussia, adjusted for population.

[ddt]

Originally Posted by gumboot

France had to pay 5 billion gold francs, with a gold value ratio of 1 fr 9/31 g gold, giving a total of 1.4 million kg gold value.

Germany had to pay 269 billion gold marks, with a gold value ratio of 2,790 marks to 1kg gold, giving a total of 96.4 million kg gold value. This was later halved (roughly) but it still makes the reparations substantially greater by comparison.

I humbly stand corrected. I don't know anymore where I read it, so I can't blame anyone else for my goof.

Wiki (World War I reparations^WP) says indeed the payments were reduced in 1921 from 269 bn Goldmark to 132 bn Goldmark. It mentions further that the Young Plan in 1929 set further payments at 112 bn Goldmark. It doesn't mention explicitly how much had been paid in those 8 years. Indeed 20 bn Goldmark? Are those Goldmarks against the same exchange rate? Do you happen to know how much Germany paid until payments were stalled in 1931? (Yes, I also read they were resumed after WW2).

Originally Posted by gumboot

In other words the Geman WW1 reparations were almost 70 times as high as the French Franco-Prussian reparations.

It's also worth noting that while the ToV reparations were basically arbitrary, the Treaty of Frankfurt reparations were based on the reparations Napoleon demanded after the defeat of Prussia, adjusted for population.

Thanks. So there was some self-sustaining mechanism of extracting reparation payments... How far does this go back?

[Tolls]

Originally Posted by gumboot

A lot of military historians are inclined to regard the European theatres of WW1 and WW2 as two stages of a single European War with a long ceasefire in between, and regard the Pacific Theatre of WW2 as a totally separate war.

I'm inclined to agree with Nogbad - the lead up to WW1 pretty much set the stage for both WW1 and WW2.

If we want to look at why WW1 didn't stop, but flared up again in 1939 as WW2, I think the primary concern is the attitude of the allies. This incorporates ToV, but it also incorporates the League of Nations. It was really, if you ask me, the attitude of (in particular) France and Great Britain, combined with the USA's distancing from Europe, that guaranteed a new war would occur. That's both the attitude immediately post war, and the attitude during the interwar period.

I agree the attitude of the Entente undoubtedly created the situation in German in the 20s, but I think we are possibly expecting too much from the politicians of the time. In terms of the reparations, for example, comparing them to 1870 (or even earlier) doesn't do them justice. The French looked at the damage done, and expected it to be covered by the treaty. Trying to place a post-WW2 attitude to the post-WW1 one strikes me as wrong. These were, after all, 19th century people, and not 20th.

In addition, you have to take into account that these were also the people who saw Germany impose worse conditions on the Russians, and who would undoubtedly have imposed severe conditions on the Entente should they lose.

I'm of the opinion it had to take another big war to actually sort Europe out, and even then the post-war reorganisation was wrong (compare east to west Germany in 1945-6).

[theprestige]

I'm pretty sure that the proximal cause of WWII was Adolf Hitler's will to power, and his personal ideas of what to do with that power.

WWII was never the inevitable outcome of any cause or group of causes: It was one possibility among many, chosen intentionally by people who were coerced not by blind circumstance nor by their enemies to make the choice they made.

[Gene L]

The lead-up to WW I was nationalism in the Balkan States and a desire for state independence. Unwise alliances of the Western powers percolated the steamy side of this. Mobilization caused fears of a general invasion of not just the Balkans but Eastern Eurpoean states. Resentmens from the Franco-Prussian war were a big issue with France, and overseas colonies was an issue with Britian. I don't see that as an issue in WW II, at all.

Hiltler came to power in part, a large part, because of resentment of the Versiallies treaty. He capitalized on this resentment, which was strong and and started before WW I ended offically, a resentment toward the government. Strong feelings of German nationalism, fueled by the idea that Germany didn't really lose, they were sold out by the politicans. It can't be under-estimated, but it's not THE sole cause.

[blutoski]

Originally Posted by theprestige

I'm pretty sure that the proximal cause of WWII was Adolf Hitler's will to power, and his personal ideas of what to do with that power.

WWII was never the inevitable outcome of any cause or group of causes: It was one possibility among many, chosen intentionally by people who were coerced not by blind circumstance nor by their enemies to make the choice they made.

Again, though, this is a Eurocentric perspective: WWII involved the Japanese conquest of huge swaths of British, French, Dutch, and US assets in the Pacific - an aggressive military strategy they had been preparing for a generation. They had been at war with Russia/Soviet Union on and off since the turn of the century, and solidly with China for decades, including the so-called "interwar" period. The Rape of Nanking was 1937. Serious skirmishes with the USSR started in 1938.

Even Europe was festering during this period. Franco seized Spain for Fascism in 1936. Heck: Mussolini was bombing Greece in 1923.

We'll never really know what would have happened if Hitler just plain got into art school, but WWII wasn't just Hitler's brainchild. I think Japan would have engaged the US at some point, and being able to delay and consolidate Chinese gains, instead of rush to war to seize scattered Allied colonies in order to help Hitler, might have made it easier for them.

[Byzantine Magpie]

Originally Posted by Nogbad

We should remember that Fascists took power in Spain and Italy before Germany and were fiercely anti-communist and also protectionist. The Kings of Albania and Romania were not far from occupying similar political positions. Hitler and the Nazis took the political rhetoric further than these others but in many ways they were pushing at an open door caused by prevailing political sentiments across a swathe of Europe. It was those societies least affected from the fall out of WW1 and the revolution in Russia in 1917 that stood against the new boy on the political block, Fascism.

Just to clarify, Franco didn't launch his coup attempt in Spain until 1936, three years after Hitler had come to power, and didn't win the Civil War until April 1939, only five months before Germany invaded Poland.

Quote:

Another factor is that many countries including Britain and the US viewed the Soviet Union with considerable concern and a strong non-communist leader in Germany was not considered a bad thing at all (at least until it became apparent the cure was worse than the illness).

Yes. It's instructive to see how France and Britain dithered in 1939 in their negotiations with the USSR. Stalin suspected, probably rightly, that they weren't genuine in their efforts, and saw the possibilities available in an alliance of convenience with Hitler. The problem for Britain and France was that they couldn't imagine that the leaders of two such radically opposed ideologies could come to an agreement, especially as they'd so recently supported opposing sides in the Spanish Civil War.

Quote:

If the ToV had been handled differently and if either more continuity with the old order or a more robust new order had been set up in 1918 in Germany then perhaps the Nazis would have been a nearly party as they were in many other European countries.

My own view is that WW1 was responsible for 1917 in Russia and the subsequent rise of Fascism in Europe and that from the first bullet in August 1914 there probably wasn't much to be done to prevent the eventual fall out across the following decades.

It's a tricky question, though I admit I don't know what the academic opinion about it is. Personally I don't think World War Two was inevitable. My view of history sits halfway between the historical inevitabilism of the Marxists and the old Tory (?) admiration of the Great Man of History. In other words, history is driven by trends, but can suddenly be forced onto a new course by the actions of as few as one person. And once on that new course, it quickly acquires a new momentum which can carry things in a very different direction. In the context of World War Two, European history would have been very different had Hitler been assassinated in 1939 or earlier. Had he been assassinated between the conquest of France and the invasion of Germany, history would have taken again another different course. And so on.

[Byzantine Magpie]

Originally Posted by Gene L

The lead-up to WW I was nationalism in the Balkan States and a desire for state independence. Unwise alliances of the Western powers percolated the steamy side of this. Mobilization caused fears of a general invasion of not just the Balkans but Eastern Eurpoean states. Resentmens from the Franco-Prussian war were a big issue with France, and overseas colonies was an issue with Britian. I don't see that as an issue in WW II, at all.

With respect, I'd like to disagree with a lot of your points here.

Yes, nationalism in the Balkans was an issue, but the issue which needs to be looked at here was why a local issue boiled over into a Europe-wide war. In this situation, I think the blame lies mainly with Germany. Its war plan assumed that war with Russia meant war with France, and it acted on that basis, even though there was no evidence at the time of mobilisation that France was about to back Russia.

In the case of France, my understanding is that a desire for revenge for the Franco-Prussian war wasn't uppermost in the minds of most French people, and that Alsace and Lorraine were largely written off. Instead, what happened in August 1914 was that Germany presented absurdly unacceptable demands to France which had nothing to do with the sitaution at the time, in order to ensure France would go war, and thus give Germany the excuse to exercise its war plan.

On top of that, I understand the Germans had the opportunity to pull back from the brink earlier than that when Czar Nicholas appealled personally to Kaiser Wilhelm for peace, but that the Germans (the General Staff I suspect) felt they were already so far down the path of mobilisation that it was simpler to go to war than send everyone home.

I found it particularly instructive to read "The Times" of London during the period late June 1914 to August 1914 (on microfilm at the National Library here in Canberra). At least from the perspective of Britain, World War One literally popped out of nowhere in the course of half a week at the end of July, at a time when Britain was caught up in what was heading towards civil war in Ireland, and when relations with Germany seemed to be improving.

Quote:

Hiltler came to power in part, a large part, because of resentment of the Versiallies treaty. He capitalized on this resentment, which was strong and and started before WW I ended offically, a resentment toward the government. Strong feelings of German nationalism, fueled by the idea that Germany didn't really lose, they were sold out by the politicans. It can't be under-estimated, but it's not THE sole cause.

Agreed.

[Darth Rotor]

Originally Posted by Byzantine Magpie

With respect, I'd like to disagree with a lot of your points here.

Yes, nationalism in the Balkans was an issue, but the issue which needs to be looked at here was why a local issue boiled over into a Europe-wide war. In this situation, I think the blame lies mainly with Germany.

And I think the blame lies with Russia, economically and politically expansionist pre WW I and pre WW II, respectively.

Quote:

In the case of France, my understanding is that a desire for revenge for the Franco-Prussian war wasn't uppermost in the minds of most French people, and that Alsace and Lorraine were largely written off.

Did you ever look at Plan XVII, and what its objectives were?

DR

[Byzantine Magpie]

Originally Posted by Darth Rotor

And I think the blame lies with Russia, economically and politically expansionist pre WW I and pre WW II, respectively.

In the case of World War One, Russia was aggressive when it only had Austria-Hungary to face. When Germany supported Austria-Hungary, Russia tried to back down. This is when Germany could likewise have put its sabre back in its scabbard, but Germany continued with mobilisation, leading to war.

In the case of World War Two, I don't think Russian aggression was the cause. Rather it was German aggression. After all, Germany was prepared to go to war over Czechslovakia, and did so against Poland, the West and Russia. The fact that Russia seized territory from Poland, Romania and Finland, and absorbed the Baltic States in the period 1939-40 was comparative opportunism thanks to the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. Consider, after all, that German plans for the invasion of Poland must have pre-dated the Pact, and must therefore have assumed that they'd conquer all of Poland. Would Stalin have sent Russia to war in 1939 against Germany? Unlikely I think.

Quote:

Did you ever look at Plan XVII, and what its objectives were?

Yes, I know it well. Their plan was to invade Alsace and Lorraine. But it was a military plan, and thus not necessarily endorsed either by the French people or even the French government. As I said, my understanding of French public opinion (and I admit, this is stretching my memory of Modern History classes > 20 years ago!) in the immediate pre-war years was that while they'd like to have Alsace-Lorraine back, it wasn't worth going to war for. And I'm quite certain the French government was by no means committed to going to war in 1914 to support Russia - at least, not until Germany presented its absurd demands.

In other words, had Germany presented milder demands to France in August 1914, the French *may* have stood aside and let Austria-Hungary and Germany take on Russia alone.

[aggle-rithm]

The Treaty of Versailles was necessary but not sufficient to explain Hitler's rise to power. The fact is, it required an extraordinary string of fortuitous circumstances to get Hitler named Chancellor, and allow him to become dictator. There were several times he was dead in the water politically, but doors kept opening up that let him back in.

A lot of Allied strategists thought the reason Germany didn't stay down was that the civilian populous was spared any of the agony of warfare in the first World War and were thus ready and willing to support a second war. That was the justification for the bombing of Dresden and other non-military targets.

[Tolls]

Originally Posted by Darth Rotor

Did you ever look at Plan XVII, and what its objectives were?

DR

Plan XVII was intended to defeat the German army. The initial stages were intended to figure out where the Germans were going to attack (ie through Belgium, or directly across the border), should they go for France first. In order to be able to handle either situation the mobile part of the French army was deployed behind the forces covering the Belgian and German borders, so it could move in either direction.

So, the idea was to attack the German armies advancing on whichever of the two expected axes (Belgium or France), or invade Germany. What happened is the French scouts into Belgium got there early (the French mobilised faster than the Germans), and so missed all but a few German forces moving into Belgium. Joffre then came to the conclusion, based on this evidence, that the Germans were either going to move directly into France or were going to handle the Russians first...so he moved his forces to invade Germany. And the rest is history...

In short, Plan XVII was not about reclaiming Alsace-Lorraine, it was all about attacking the main German army.

[Soapy Sam]

I thought it started after Pope Gregor cut off Jenkin's ear. Or was that the hundred years of the Roses?
So many wars, so little time.

It was caused by population pressure and greed, like all wars.