What exactly did WW2 in Europe Accomplish?

[timshatz]

Before it gets too political, why not turn the table around....? How different would Europe and the world be today if WWII hadn't happened, if Hitler had stopped with Austria and Czechoslovakia? Just curious for some interesting answers...

It is a good question, Lucky.

I'm not sure Hitler could stop in 1938. He was broke (rebuilding the Wermacht/Luftwaffe/Kriegmarine is expensive) which accounts for some of the impetus of his actions. However, the question is a good one.

I think National Socialism goes the way of Marxist Socialism and dies in a generation after Hitler's death. If you look at the Totalitarian Socialist regimes that were started around that time, both Right Wing and Left Wing, you see they have a life span of (generally) 20-70 years (without being destroyed by war). That leaves a lot of leeway but most socialist regimes (Spain, Yugoslavia, Cambodia, Germany, Italy, Cuba?) don't outlive their creators. In the cases where they do (Russia, China) they either tend to morph into something more effective economically or get caught in a spiral of collapse.

Don't count the East Block nations as they were more buffer states for the Soviet Union than actual working Socialist entities.

So. my guess is Hitler dies in the Late 50s/Early 60s and the next ten years for Germany is a continuing struggle for power against various forces ending up in a general govt collapse. The alternative idea is Germany goes to war with France or Poland shortly before the collapse to divert citizenry from problems, much like Argentina did in the 80s with the Falklands.

Italy? Mussolini tanks it some time around 1945. No particular reason, just the general inefficiency of his realm and the oddball adventures he gets Italy into ground the country down and the Italians dump him.

Soviet Union is the real question. What is Stalin going to do. He was on a run of expansion up until 1941. Doubt he would stop. The possibility exists that the Soviet Union goes to war against Germany. To do that, the SU is going to have to attack Poland. That is a possibility. They had a pretty brutal war in the 20s, might start up again as Stalin moves West.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Before it gets too political, why not turn the table around....? How different would Europe and the world be today if WWII hadn't happened, if Hitler had stopped with Austria and Czechoslovakia? Just curious for some interesting answers...

Eventually it would have erupted into chaos anyhow. All the different governments were filled with some kind of distrust for one another, and most countries were some form of anti-jewish. There were too many border disputes based off of WW1 and the Germans eventually would have been demanding them back anyhow.

Also just about every country had some form of inner fight with Communism going on.

Eventually WW2 would have broken out, but I believe it would have even more revolved around a struggle with Communism.

 

[Condora]

I agree that unfortunately, WW II would have happened anyway.

I tried to think of some alternative development, but the situation was as prone to war as for WW I. Then, if not for "Archie Duke" Ferdinand having been shot, it would have been started over something else. As a matter of fact, I believe the unacceptable ultimatum Austria-Hungary sent to Serbia was accepted, but Austria declared war anyway.

 

[michaelmaltby]

This is indeed an interesting twist to carbon's thread. In my view the conflict between Stalin and Hitler was a foregone conclusion. Without expansion east, Germany would go bankrupt ... the resources were needed. Stalin knew this and would have taken his own initiatives at the first opportunity to box his mortal enemy in geographically. You can see that in the moves to take control of Romanian oil fields in '39 -'40 ... a time when Non Agression Pact is in effect and the two nations are supposedly co-operating.

If Hitler had stopped with Austria no one would have complained .. (he was Austrian after all). If he'd stopped after Munich (buffer on Soviet flank) Stalin would have still been formulating strategy to move against Hitler in due course. Europe and the world just wasn't big enough for those two.

My thoughts ...

MM

 

[timshatz]

While I agree WW1 was going to happen (political, economic and most importantly, social strains were too great), I am not convinced WW2 was any more pre-ordained much as WW3 was the same. A lot of what started WW2 was initiated at Vesailles. Handled better, WW2 might not've happened the way it did.

If the end of WW2 had happened in 1918-1919, I'm pretty sure WW2 would've been avoided. No Versailles Treaty means no Hitler. No Hitler, means no German military expansion. But the Allies in 1918 would've had to have marched all the way to Berlin in 1919. There were generals in 1918 that saw it this way (Pershing being one of them), but were over ruled and the war ended on French soil. In 1945, there was no way the Allies were going to let Germany have a negotiated peace. There were going to be defeated with boots on the ground, troops in the street. If this had happened in 1919, I'm pretty convinced there is no great war started in Europe by Germany in 1939.

But others make a good point, with Hitler and Stalin essentially bumping into each other, it was a matter of time before they went head to head.

Tricky question.

 

[comiso90]

If Hitler was shanked in prison and he died... would there have been a WW2?
Perhaps Russia would have invaded the West in the mid 40's and Germany would have been on our side

 

[parsifal]

I believe WWII was unavoidable after WWI. Hitler was not that remarkable, he was certainly replaceable. After WWI there were hundreds, if not thousands of political splinter groups that were at work on the disillusioned masses. If Hitler had not fired, someone else would of. Germany was a hotbed of discontent, and any number of people were prepred to exploit that.

"Remove Hitler from the equation and everything will be okay" is a variation of "its all the nazis fault". Both are an absolute myth. Germany was not democratic at that time. The imposition of the weimar republic was bound to fail. With the failure of democracy, coupled with the sheer sense of shame and despair, it was inevitable that someone was going to exploit those conditions. If not Hitler, then someone. And that alsmost certainly meant that Germany was going to bump uglies with her neighbours at some point

 

[Waynos]

The Germans in general and Hitler in particular greatly resented the way Versaiiles had treated them, particularly the French moreso than the other allies. As was said if that had all happened differently there might not have been a WW2. However it was never really going to handled too differrently as an embittered France demanded reparations from Germany. Even when the US and UK were in favour of relenting in the 1920's the French would not budge, they even sent troops back into Germany to make sure it met its obligations. This background means that a Germany fighting on our side against the Russians does not work as revenge on France was at the top of the Agenda and would have been without Hitler too.

 

[vikingBerserker]

I think even if Germany stopped at Austria, Russia would still have tried to relaim the "land" they lost after WW1.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

While I agree WW1 was going to happen (political, economic and most importantly, social strains were too great), I am not convinced WW2 was any more pre-ordained much as WW3 was the same. A lot of what started WW2 was initiated at Vesailles. Handled better, WW2 might not've happened the way it did.

I like to look at it as WW1 and WW2 were the same war with a 21 year cease fire.

If the end of WW2 had happened in 1918-1919, I'm pretty sure WW2 would've been avoided. No Versailles Treaty means no Hitler. No Hitler, means no German military expansion. But the Allies in 1918 would've had to have marched all the way to Berlin in 1919. There were generals in 1918 that saw it this way (Pershing being one of them), but were over ruled and the war ended on French soil. In 1945, there was no way the Allies were going to let Germany have a negotiated peace. There were going to be defeated with boots on the ground, troops in the street. If this had happened in 1919, I'm pretty convinced there is no great war started in Europe by Germany in 1939.

Here is the problem with that. The allies handled the end of WW1 very wrong. The Treaty of Versaille was too harsh to put on a country that 1). technically did not start the conflict, was honoring her treaties as everyone else would have, and 2). a country that was not defeated on the battlefield.

No allied soldier ever set foot in Germany during the War.

The treaty should have been strong, but just. The Treaty in itself is what led to WW2. Without that treaty, WW2 may have never happened.

 

[michaelmaltby]

"The Treaty should have ben strong, but just" ... [Adler]

Adler, with all respect I suggest you read this brief history of the Franco-Prussian war:

FrancoPrussianwar.com Franco-Prussian war 1870-1871

In 1918 - at Versailles - France was only doing to Germany what Germany had done to France in 1871. And in turn, Hitler returned the favor in the same railway car in 1940.

I could easily write that "if" Preident Wilson and the US Congress had not adopted an isolationist position in 1918 and remained engaged, the bitterness between Germany and France "might" have been defused and re-directed.

Harry Truman and George Marshall suceeded in not repeating that mistake in 1945 and the result - while not perfection - broke the cycle of vengence that had started with Napoleon ... while checking a new common enemy, the USSR

Do not tell any Canadian who served in France in The Great War (sadly, all dead now) that Germany was NOT defeated in 1918 when the Kaiser abdicated and the government sued for peace .... google 'Canada's 100 Days' if you want to read a truly outstanding campaign history. In the same vein, google 'German invaison of Belgium' 1914 if you want to appreciate the character, attitude and behavior of the German troops that invaded Belgium.

History is a great wheel that keeps turning unless politicians find a way to break that wheel and re-invent it -- hence my great admiration for Truman and Marshall.

Regards,

MM

While you are technically correct, Adler, when you write: "no allied soldier occupied german territory during the war", it is a mute point.

Germany collapsed, government sued for peace: "uncle". And then pretended it hadn't been that way.

USARCENT/CFLCC - History - Crossing the Rhine

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

"The Treaty should have ben strong, but just" ... [Adler]

Adler, with all respect I suggest you read this brief history of the Franco-Prussian war:

FrancoPrussianwar.com Franco-Prussian war 1870-1871

In 1918 - at Versailles - France was only doing to Germany what Germany had done to France in 1871. And in turn, Hitler returned the favor in the same railway car in 1940.

I could easily write that "if" Preident Wilson and the US Congress had not adopted an isolationist position in 1918 and remained engaged, the bitterness between Germany and France "might" have been defused and re-directed.

Harry Truman and George Marshall suceeded in not repeating that mistake in 1945 and the result - while not perfection - broke the cycle of vengence that had started with Napoleon ... while checking a new common enemy, the USSR

I can agree with that.

Do not tell any Canadian who served in France in The Great War (sadly, all dead now) that Germany was NOT defeated in 1918 when the Kaiser abdicated and the government sued for peace .... google 'Canada's 100 Days' if you want to read a truly outstanding campaign history. In the same vein, google 'German invaison of Belgium' 1914 if you want to appreciate the character, attitude and behavior of the German troops that invaded Belgium.

Don't get butt hurt. You are obviously taking me out of context. Of course Germany lost battles, of course Germany was "defeated", they lost the war didn't they?

Fact remains however that they were not fully militarily defeated. Not a single allied soldier stepped foot on German soil. When German surrendured they were only 65 km from Paris. That is one reason why Hitler and many Germans resented the treaty.

The treaty in that way led directly to WW2.

So again, do not take me out of context. If you are unsure what I mean, then just ask me and I will explain what I mean...

 

[Marcel]

Germany was defeated, because the lost all public support at home in 1918. Fearing a revolution (rightfully so) in their own country, the war could not be won anymore. To say that the German army was defeated is a bit simplistic. It's fair to say that the British and French armies were as much defeated as they were, but the US tipped the scale on the military situation. Still, Germany agreed to the treaty because of their home situation.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Germany was defeated, because the lost all public support at home in 1918. Fearing a revolution (rightfully so) in their own country, the war could not be won anymore. To say that the German army was defeated is a bit simplistic. It's fair to say that the British and French armies were as much defeated as they were, but the US tipped the scale on the military situation. Still, Germany agreed to the treaty because of their home situation.

100% correct.

 

[michaelmaltby]

"If you are unsure what I mean, then just ask me and I will explain what I mean."

I'm unsure, Crew Chief. I need to understand the "context". Guderian was in the suburbs of Moscow in December '41 and ... well .. we know how that worked out. Napoleon made it right into the city and ... same story

"No Allied soldier set foot in Germany" - perhaps my geography is weak but the last time I checked, Cologne was a German city.

MM

 

[parsifal]

The breakdown in Germany was in large measure the result of the crippling blockade that had been imposed in 1914, and maintained throughout the war.

Also, had the war continued into 1919, the Germans would have been driven back into their own territory. The German army on the western front, were not defeated utterly, but they were starting to crumble nevertheless (look at the battles following April 1918 and it becomes obvious-in particular what the germans called "the black week" which occurred in August 1918) . In 1919 they would have been subjected to a ww2 style of armoured warfare as the theories of JFC Fuller were put into effect. In the air they were losing the air war. On the Turkish front the Turks were suing for peace. Austria had all but collapsed. Germany's allies were deserting her in droves. The Allies were winning the war at sea. The British and the French were finally getting some forward movement on the western front.

Its again just not true to try and argue that Germany was not facing defeat. She would have capitulated unconditionally in 1919 or 1920, instead of accepting the conditional terms of 1918. Viewed in those terms Versailles was entirely reasonable. Germany was guilty of waging the first of her aggressive wars, and had inflicted enormous misery on most of her neighbours. This was particulalry true for the French, where the horrors of Verdun were all too real. Germany got the peace terms she deserved, in my opinion, but the myth that she was defeated from within sowed the seeds for Part II of the conflict. The allies were not so silly the second time around. They demanded nothing less than unconditional surrender, to push the point home that Germany was defeated by the allies, in the second war

 

[river]

Hi,

Unconditional surrender or not, both Germany and Japan came out of the defeat of WW2 to become strong economies.

Anyway, going back to some previous comments about Germany and Russia butting heads if there was no WW2... I am not sure Stalin would of been ready to wage war against Germany for a number of years... possibly around 44-45. I don't think Russia had the military strength in 41-43 to take on Germany.

Russia ramped up its military production and building armies after they were attacked by Germany. Without the impetus of a German attack I do not think Russia would of ramped itself up for war with the same fervour or gusto. So, if Russia and Germany were to lock horns I'd say it would be later rather than sooner.

river

 

[vikingBerserker]

IMHO the Treaty of Versailles seemed more severe then the Treaty of Frankfurt. France just had to pay the war indemnity within 3 years to Germany. Germany had to reimburse the main victors and then pay for their own occupation of their own country. Then there were the land that they lost.

 

[renrich]

WW2, among other things, led directly to the loss of the "colonies" held by European countries in Indo China, Malaya, Dutch East Indies and India as well as a number of others. I don't know if one would call it an accomplishment or not but in the 1930s, the US was a relatively weak militarily, isolationist country which was by 1945 an international economic and miltary colossus.

 

[BombTaxi]

WW2 in Europe essentially reduced Europe to a proxy battleground for the US and USSR until the 1990s.

The point was made way back at the start of this thread that the USSR took over Eastern Europe as a result of WW2 - the US just as surely took over the West, although they didn't use tanks to do it. If I may be blunt, the Marshall Plan was not charity - it was, in it's own way, as imperialistic as anything the British did a century earlier. It opened the door for the American way of life to be exported into Western Europe in the form of American socio-economic-political values and consumer goods.

I'm not saying that Europe was unwilling to receive these things - the UK fully agreed with the US that Russia was the prime threat post-1945. But I think it is hard to see the US involvement in Europe after WW2 as anything other than imperialistic. The US gained hegemony over Western Europe to the extent that the military and political life of European nations was, through the UN and NATO, klargely subjugated to American needs until quite recently.

This isn't a liberal or anti-American rant - it is just my take on developments in Europe post-1945. One of the forgotten fronts of the Cold War is the social front - it mattered deeply to both sides that their respective socio-economic systems could deliver a better quality of life to the ordinary man than their opponent could. If you don't believe this, read a little on the 'Kitchen Debates'. Nixon and Kruschev wouldn't have stood around having a public debate about the merits of refrigerators if they didn't think that it was an important sign of who was 'winning' the Cold War...