The main reason why war in Europe broke out during WW2?

[Danielmellbin]

Well this is a hotly debated issue. Specially in recent years. A little sidestep in another post inspired me to make this poll. I know that the reason for WW2 is a combination of all the above (and some others) - but which do you feel/think was the most imporatant factor? Please comment on your choice if ya feel like it. (This is ofcourse excluding the Pacific war).

My own choice is the treaty of Versaille followed closely by the great depression. A military response to some of the German aggression of the late 30's might seem a comfortable choice - but people generally felt that Germany had been treated to roughly after WW1 - and as such thought that many of her claims and actions where not unreasonable. Furthermore: having just suffered the most bloody war in history and thus having lost almost an entire generation: The will to wage war was understandably low. So although military intervention prior to Poland might have changed alot - it is in my mind - disregarding the realities of the time.

 

[evangilder]

So in other words, this is a poll for the most deciding factor for WWII...in Europe. You are excluding not only the Pacific, but the CBI.

 

[Danielmellbin]

Excluding PTO - Yup - I also say so in the thread opener. Forgive my lack of abreviation knowledge: CBI? Furthermore the PTO largely evolved due to the ETO.

 

[JugBR]

the The treaty of Versaille was humilating for germany and made the people hopeless, and thats why hitler becomes prime minister.

but The lack of a strong response to the re-militarization of the germany was also a great reason.

 

[trackend]

I wonder if Adolf had not been around who was on the cards to initiate the ball rolling that would have start WW2.
I dont think any of his henchmen had what it needed to create a strong enough party to come to power through the ballot box (rigged or legal) or with a coup. And Hindenburg was just seeing out the old Prussian ways and waiting to die.

 

[Bigxiko]

I believe it was the treaty of Versaille
the lack of a strong response to the re-militarization of the germany
and the great depression also didn't help to prevent the war

 

[renrich]

How can one exclude the Pacific war or that in the CBI from the Second WORLD War. The war in the Pacific was probably going to happen anyway as the Japanese thought they needed to expand for their economic well being. They had invaded China long before Hitler invaded Poland and they thought the US would not resist strongly their expansionist notions. The US may not have ever gotten in the war without the attack on PH. The First World War was largely a misnomer until !917 because a large portion of the world was not involved. However, that is semantics but I think this question needs to be defined a little more exactly. For instance, what were the principle causes of the war in Europe prior to the entry of Japan and the US?

 

[parsifal]

For me, it is simple....Fascist/militarist/Nazi agression, countered by weakness and vaccillation

For all his faults, Chamberlain did not want war. Hitler, Mussolini, and the Japanese did. They achieved what they set out to do. Chamberlain and the allies did not.

Churchills great achievment was to turn the gaggle of anti-axis forces, the Americans, the Russians, the British commonwealth, and all the others, into an alliance with a single, and planned purppose in mind....in the first instance the defeat of germany first. in the second instance, the defeat of the Japanese

 

[Haztoys]

Hate greed control....Like most wars....

 

[evangilder]

I agree, Renrich. CBI is China, Burma and India. They were a separate theater of war, not to be confused with the Pacific. Had the Japanese not attacked Pearl Harbor, America's entry into the war would have at least been delayed.

 

[JugBR]

i had posted that before in other topics, but couldnt get answer about

in 1939, ussr also invaded poland, because they had a treaty with germany.

why just declare war against germany ?

 

[Freebird]

So in other words, this is a poll for the most deciding factor for WWII...in Europe. You are excluding not only the Pacific, but the CBI.

Eric I think the last option "inevitable clash" fits both Pacific European theaters. The European war came about because the government of the UK France were not willing to let Hitler the Nazis conquer Europe bit by bit. Hitler thought the Western Allies were weak and would back down, Hitler was intent on dominating Europe. Conflict was inevitable.

For all his faults, Chamberlain did not want war.

For all his faults Chamberlain {UK CW} + the French PM were the only two leaders {IIRC} who actually declared war on Hitler out of principle, and put their countries into peril by doing it. All of the other countries entered the war by being invaded, by having Hitler declare war on them or when it had very minimal effect on the war. {South America}

How can one exclude the Pacific war or that in the CBI from the Second WORLD War. The war in the Pacific was probably going to happen anyway as the Japanese thought they needed to expand for their economic well being.

The US may not have ever gotten in the war without the attack on PH.

One could even argue that the Pacific war was provoked by Roosevelt. He was unwilling to allow Japan to dominate the far east, once he cut off oil steel to Japan war was inevitable.

 

[ToughOmbre]

One could even argue that the Pacific war was provoked by Roosevelt. He was unwilling to allow Japan to dominate the far east, once he cut off oil steel to Japan war was inevitable.

I've never agreed with the idea that FDR "provoked" war with Japan; rather IMO it was Japan who provoked war with the West.

The embargo of steel and oil to Japan was in response to their aggression against China and the far east.

If FDR was provoking war anywhere it was in the Atlantic where American destroyers were escorting convoys and were in combat against German U-boats. The "Germany first" strategy had already been agreed to, prior to the US entry into the war. After the USS Kearny was torpedoed (12 dead) and the USS Reuben James sunk (115 dead), war was inevitable. Pearl Harbor just speeded things along.

TO

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Furthermore the PTO largely evolved due to the ETO.

100% disagree - the US and Japan were at odds since the Japanese invasion of Manchuria.

"In 1939, the US notified Japan that it would renounce the Treaty of Commerce and Navigation that was signed by both countries in 1911. President Roosevelt, then, went on to the imposition of partial embargo of gasoline for aircraft and scrap-metal on Japan in July 1940. Japan countered the partial embargo by advancing its troops to the northern Indo-China, and the US matched the Japan's expansion with the addition of more subjects to the list of partial embargo. This vicious circle of retaliations escalated and reached its peak when Japan moved even into the southern Indo-China in July, 1941 and the US replied to it by freezing the Japanese assets in the US and, furthermore, by the complete oil embargo on Japan. As a result, the Japanese leaders found themselves in an extremely difficult situation in which they had to make their decision out of two options: to bow before the US, or to fight a desperate war against the US"

Inventory of Conflict and Environment (ICE), Template

With or without European conflict it would of been just a matter of time before the US and Japan would go to war.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

The treaty of Versaille led to the war in Europe. Well I believe it was the most deciding factor. The German people felt without hope and were litterally living a broken life. This made it easy for Hitler to take power with his promises of a better life for the German people.

Of course everything else up there was also a contributing factor.

I have changed the name of this thread so that people will understand why you are only talking about Europe.

 

[Danielmellbin]

The Japanese where very much debating whether or not to attack the US - Yamamoto being a strong advisor against it. Had France and the UK not been entangled in the ETO I do not think that the Japanese voices for attacking the US and the colonies would have prevailed. Because of the automedon incident the Brittish weakness in the area was exposed to the Japanese and emboldend them further.

 

[JugBR]

i believe the title "The main reason why war in Europe broke out during WW2?" isnt little bit confuse ?

besides the imperialism of japan, and their agressions, it was just a regional conflict until that time. the war in europe really gives the "worldwide" contation to the event.

maybe "The main reason why war in Europe broke out?" should be better.

 

[Danielmellbin]

I would call a war that involves The United Kingdom, Australia, France, Italy, Canada, South Africa, New Zealand, Germany, The Soviet Union, Belgium, Holland, Hungary, Romania, Greece, Norway, Denmark, Finland a world war... but maybe thats just me

 

[Danielmellbin]

I think its rude to change the titel of thread without asking the author... low

 

[FLYBOYJ]

The Japanese where very much debating whether or not to attack the US - Yamamoto being a strong advisor against it. Had France and the UK not been entangled in the ETO I do not think that the Japanese voices for attacking the US and the colonies would have prevailed. Because of the automedon incident the Brittish weakness in the area was exposed to the Japanese and emboldend them further.

I doubt it...

They (the Japanese) were being starved of raw materials and oil - they could not continue to support their forces in China unless they did something to break the embargo and get the materials they needed for war. As early as 1936 the Japanese military were looking at ways to get control of Indonesia and set up many companies within the Dutch colony just for that purpose.