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

[JugBR]

i believe, we could have an idea about how was the situation in germany at that time because theres many propaganda movies, documentaries and also witness, who talks about a "great ilusion" and how people believed in that ilusionist.

its just obvious that nazi party and hitler was suported by the huge majority of germans, they took the power by democratic meanings and they made a real economical and industrial miracle, puting germany on rails and being the most powerfull country of the end of 30´s.

despite the massacre of jewish, political rivals, eastern europeans, comunists, and despite the freak aryan racial teories, the agressive speeches and the bizare beliefs of nazi leaders, the average german fellow saw his life improve with nazi at the nazi government.

 

[JugBR]

The point of my post, is that it is all how it is percieved.



As a moderator it is part of my job. Consider me an editor of sorts...

well i dont want to make drama adler, but you have to realize, edit other persons contents, could be considered censorship.

i know you made by the best of the intentions but i remember stories from people who lived in dictatureship, about the political sections of newspapers was filled with poems and revenues of pudding or just huge black boxes.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

well i dont want to make drama adler, but you have to realize, edit other persons contents, could be considered censorship.

i know you made by the best of the intentions but i remember stories from people who lived in dictatureship, about the political sections of newspapers was filled with poems and revenues of pudding or just huge black boxes.

I never edit someone's posts. I edited the title of a thread because I felt that the one that was given was confusing to some members of the forum.

That is my job as a moderator, and I will do it again.

 

[Danielmellbin]

i believe, we could have an idea about how was the situation in germany at that time because theres many propaganda movies, documentaries and also witness, who talks about a "great ilusion" and how people believed in that ilusionist.

its just obvious that nazi party and hitler was suported by the huge majority of germans, they took the power by democratic meanings and they made a real economical and industrial miracle, puting germany on rails and being the most powerfull country of the end of 30´s.

despite the massacre of jewish, political rivals, eastern europeans, comunists, and despite the freak aryan racial teories, the agressive speeches and the bizare beliefs of nazi leaders, the average german fellow saw his life improve with nazi at the nazi government.

Principally I agree with you, but actually the Nazis did not have that big a backing - as in it was far from the 98% Saddam standards (i knooow his elections where rigged) - I believe it was in the region of 50%.

As far antisemitism goes its no secret that antisemitism was flourishing in Germany (and the rest of the world) at the time. But the public was largely against the violent outbreaks (Kristalnacht and such) - this was reported by the parties own intelligence network. The general notion was: Antisemitism is ok - but not like this.

As for an industrial miracle... well books and studies have found the economy of the third reich surprisingly corrupt and inefficient. No doubt big improvements where made from 35 onwards - but many of them where made by "gung-ho" economic decisions that could easily have colapsed the country if anything had gone wrong. In 1934 the reich only had enough cash to substain one week of an eventual economic crisis. A really great book on the economy of the third reich is "Wages of Destruction" by Adam Tooze.

 

[Danielmellbin]

I never edit someone's posts. I edited the title of a thread because I felt that the one that was given was confusing to some members of the forum.

That is my job as a moderator, and I will do it again.

I know - and I know it was all in good intent - but it feels wrong to have ones own words changed without consent. Like Jug said - its not at all to make any drama - just hope you would say it or ask first the next time.

 

[Freebird]

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.

Daniel, they had no other choice but to go to war or retreat from China. They only had 6 months of oil reserves, and no production.

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.

TO

I think FDR just wanted Japan out of China - the US did not want to fight the Japanese and was only prepared to protect US territory in the region

Well TO, FJ, I guess it depends on how you look at it. The US was not really interested in what happened in Europe, as Poland Czechoslovakia were seen as a "European problem" not involving the US. By the same logic the USA could have chosen to view the conflict between Japan China as an "Asian problem" and not got involved.

Roosevelt was well aware that the Japanese belief in "honor" and their own superiority would prevent them from backing down. The President was not willing to let them dominate Asia, and so put in place such stringent sanctions that would force them to withdraw, or very much more likely, to start a war. He also leaned on the Dutch to prevent the Japanese from finding an alternate source of oil.

Note that I am not in any way blaming Roosevelt for not backing down, he did the right thing IMO, better to deal with an aggressive Japan sooner rather than later, after they had absorbed all of the rich colonies and could pose a serious threat to the USA.

I could almost compare that to the pro-active attitude of Les, deal with the potential problems right away, don't let them fester.

In a similar way, we could ask who "started" the European war, Hitler for invading Poland, or the British French for declaring war?

They called our bluff - we wouldn't back down - so started the war.



Oh boy, imagine if we had Hillary Obama the "Soros" crowd in charge, we would have expressed "regret", had sanctions, and oh! perhaps even ban the Nazi's from the Olympics!

Perhaps we could have negotiated with the Nazi's to reduce the number of death camps by half? Perhaps ask the Japanese to only kill rape half the people in Nanking?


Too many people in the West are going soft.... {in the head!}

 

[Freebird]

I never edit someone's posts. I edited the title of a thread because I felt that the one that was given was confusing to some members of the forum.

That is my job as a moderator, and I will do it again.

QUOTE=Danielmellbin;374433]This is of course excluding the Pacific war
[/QUOTE]

You are correct DerAdler, after seeing the title some of us posted about the Pacific as well, as it wasn't clear in the title.

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.

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 .

Daniel, just some advice here as you are fairly new to the forum- Be very careful about the title of a new thread and the way you set up a poll.

You can always edit your Posts later, but if you make spelling or other mistakes in the thread title or in the poll only a Moderator can change it.

I would also advise you to "make votes public" and for this poll you should have made it "multiple choice", as some people might think that 2 or more reasons listed in the poll caused the war


This is not in any way intended as critisism, just some advice.

 

[Danielmellbin]

Daniel, they had no other choice but to go to war or retreat from China. They only had 6 months of oil reserves, and no production.

I know - but nevertheless there was violent debate in the Japanese high command on what to do. A major factor in convincing the nay sayers on an all out war (or atleast weakening their arguments) was the Automedon Incident. The papers captured on the Raider revealed the Absolute weakness of the European powers in SEA. As such the Japanese correctly reckoned that their only real adversary at sea was the US - and its pacific fleet could be annihilated by one strike (or so they thought).

Freebird - I agree with your points regarding Roosevelt and the start of the World war - but pleeease keep modern-day politics out of this thread

 

[Freebird]

Freebird - I agree with your points regarding Roosevelt and the start of the World war - but pleeease keep modern-day politics out of this thread

OK!

I know - but nevertheless there was violent debate in the Japanese high command on what to do.

But what alternative did they have? There was an Imperial conference in July of 1941, they put all of their hopes in convincing the Dutch to sell them oil, otherwise it would lead to war. {They did not know that Roosevelt was leaning on the Dutch very heavily not to do that}

There was a sharp difference of opinion on whether to attack the USA, but there was NO SUPPORT for backing down in China, they all agreed that war would bcome if the Dutch refused them oil.

The Navy argued that it would be too dangerous to attack Dutch colonies while the US still had a major base {Philippines} along Japan's supply line, and could choose to attack at any time. It was decided to eliminate this threat as quickly as possible

 

[Danielmellbin]

Daniel, just some advice here as you are fairly new to the forum- Be very careful about the title of a new thread and the way you set up a poll.

You can always edit your Posts later, but if you make spelling or other mistakes in the thread title or in the poll only a Moderator can change it.

I would also advise you to "make votes public" and for this poll you should have made it "multiple choice", as some people might think that 2 or more reasons listed in the poll caused the war


This is not in any way intended as critisism, just some advice.

Thanks mate - learned that the hard way . However - it was intentional to not make it a multiple choice poll. I wanted people's view on the most deciding factor in their opinion. By experience I've seen that "one choice polls" makes people think harder. And then they can always elaborate in their comments.

As i already have tried to explain many times - I would appreciate if I was consulted before my own words where changed - I know that there was no ill will intended. But it just doesn't feel good.

 

[Danielmellbin]

But what alternative did they have? There was an Imperial conference in July of 1941, they put all of their hopes in convincing the Dutch to sell them oil, otherwise it would lead to war. {They did not know that Roosevelt was leaning on the Dutch very heavily not to do that}

There was a sharp difference of opinion on whether to attack the USA, but there was NO SUPPORT for backing down in China, they all agreed that war would bcome if the Dutch refused them oil.

The Navy argued that it would be too dangerous to attack Dutch colonies while the US still had a major base {Philippines} along Japan's supply line, and could choose to attack at any time. It was decided to eliminate this threat as quickly as possible

All true and I also find it hard to see their alternative - but I just wonder if they would not have figured out something if the European powers had not been occupied. Deal with Russia maybe? Highly unlikely seeing as they were not exactly friends to put it mildly. But then again the Russians would also have benifitted from such a deal since their eastern border would have been secure. The Russians weren't exactly strangers to makin deals with their enemies.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Well TO, FJ, I guess it depends on how you look at it. The US was not really interested in what happened in Europe, as Poland Czechoslovakia were seen as a "European problem" not involving the US. By the same logic the USA could have chosen to view the conflict between Japan China as an "Asian problem" and not got involved.

Roosevelt was well aware that the Japanese belief in "honor" and their own superiority would prevent them from backing down. The President was not willing to let them dominate Asia, and so put in place such stringent sanctions that would force them to withdraw, or very much more likely, to start a war. He also leaned on the Dutch to prevent the Japanese from finding an alternate source of oil.

Note that I am not in any way blaming Roosevelt for not backing down, he did the right thing IMO, better to deal with an aggressive Japan sooner rather than later, after they had absorbed all of the rich colonies and could pose a serious threat to the USA.

I could almost compare that to the pro-active attitude of Les, deal with the potential problems right away, don't let them fester.

In a similar way, we could ask who "started" the European war, Hitler for invading Poland, or the British French for declaring war?

They called our bluff - we wouldn't back down - so started the war.



Oh boy, imagine if we had Hillary Obama the "Soros" crowd in charge, we would have expressed "regret", had sanctions, and oh! perhaps even ban the Nazi's from the Olympics!

Perhaps we could have negotiated with the Nazi's to reduce the number of death camps by half? Perhaps ask the Japanese to only kill rape half the people in Nanking?


Too many people in the West are going soft.... {in the head!}

Points taken - but with the evidence of US strength in the Pacific, the only thing FDR would of done is to ensure that US territories were protected. There was no huge military build up in the Philippines prior to the war to conduct operations against the Japanese; as a matter of fact the military posture there was one of defense rather than offense. In my wife's grandfathers book he talks about this as he was on Macarthur's staff...

 

[Freebird]

Points taken - but with the evidence of US strength in the Pacific, the only thing FDR would of done is to ensure that US territories were protected. There was no huge military build up in the Philippines prior to the war to conduct operations against the Japanese; as a matter of fact the military posture there was one of defense rather than offense. In my wife's grandfathers book he talks about this as he was on Macarthur's staff...

We got into this a little bit in Syscom's earlier thread, 2 points I would bring up.

1.) The Japanese were aware that Roosevelt was hostile, while the mood in Congress was Isolationist {a large part of it}. The danger for the Japanese was that if they depended on US neutrality, the Congressional elections in 1942 might return an intervetionalist group who would take action against Japanese aggression. Then it would be to late to try to make a surprise attack, not to mention the large # of forces would have been tied up in IndoChina and could not be easily transferred to the Philippines

2.) Although the exact diplomatic arrangements have never been released I am totally convinced that Roosevelt must have given the Dutch an ironclad guarantee of support in event of Japanese invasion, to secure Dutch support for a total embargo. If Roosevelt had given anything less than a total {but secret} guarantee, I think the Dutch would have caved to Japanese pressure and sold the oil. They had already lost Holland to the Nazi's, why would they pick a fight with Japan? The Dutch did not really care if Japan was involved in China, it would keep them busy for a few years.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Well in reading "Bloody Shambles" and my wife's grandfather's book those promises by FDR were pretty empty - the US would of had to deploy a sizable force to counter the Japanese and even if Pearl Harbor didn't happen I could not see the US defending Dutch Territories let alone its own possessions - I think history proved that to ultimately be correct.

 

[stasoid]

I voted for Munich Agreement as the main factor triggering the war. There should be no confusion on how that all began. He got the green light. He gained some territories without firing s shot, his logic was simple: why not to take it all.

 

[Danielmellbin]

I voted for Munich Agreement as the main factor triggering the war. There should be no confusion on how that all began. He got the green light. He gained some territories without firing s shot, his logic was simple: why not to take it all.

"Les Idiot" - Daladier when he returned from Munich and saw the chearing crowds. (pardon if my french is bad - but the quote is correct)

However - I think that the history of 1914-1938 makes it unrealistic that any other politician would have acted differently.

 

[Aussie1001]

Off topic a bit nice to see i have one believer in rock daniel

Back on topic, for one of our units at school we did Adolph, and drawing from this i really think that the thing that sparked off WW2 in europe at least was the treaty of Versaille. As adler said before it sparked german resentment towards the rest of europe for being treated in that manner if Hitler hadn't done what he did i believe someone else would have, the oppotunity was right there for the taking.

 

[parsifal]

I am pretty sure that the US made gurantees to the Dutch as well. The Americans put great faith in the deterrent effect of the airpower that was based in the Phillipines, and grossly overrated the effectiveness of the filipino army in resisting the Japanese. The Americans also believed their own military assessments, which in the long run was correct, that a Japanese attack on the west would be national hari kari by the Japanese.

The events that led to the Japanese entry can be summed pretty easily, it was a gross strategic miscalculation by the Americans. i dont believe, incidentally in the conspiracy theories that Roosevelt engineered it to happen, to facilitate US entry to the war. I do believe he thought war was coming, but was hoping, rather than predicting, that the outbreak of the war might be delayed by a couple more months, to allow the new reinforcements being rushed to the theatre, to be put into position

 

[FLYBOYJ]

I am pretty sure that the US made gurantees to the Dutch as well. The Americans put great faith in the deterrent effect of the airpower that was based in the Phillipines, and grossly overrated the effectiveness of the filipino army in resisting the Japanese. The Americans also believed their own military assessments, which in the long run was correct, that a Japanese attack on the west would be national hari kari by the Japanese.

The events that led to the Japanese entry can be summed pretty easily, it was a gross strategic miscalculation by the Americans. i dont believe, incidentally in the conspiracy theories that Roosevelt engineered it to happen, to facilitate US entry to the war. I do believe he thought war was coming, but was hoping, rather than predicting, that the outbreak of the war might be delayed by a couple more months, to allow the new reinforcements being rushed to the theatre, to be put into position

I do agree however those reinforcements were probably spoken about but would of never materalized.

 

[Glider]

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.

There is no disagreement about the historical facts about what happened, its a matter of record.
The only question I would have, is that if the UK had not gone to war with Germany, would Japan have attacked America knowing that it was almost certain that the UK would support the USA in any conflict. I don't think they would. To go against the two biggest Navies in the world at the same time in a naval domminated environment such as the Pacific would be asking a lot.