What exactly did WW2 in Europe Accomplish?

[Condora]

No, that's pretty much what you said. Only one person stated it and nobody agreed with it.

This is the first time I have ever heard anybody claim England caused WW1. Of course I just found out a few months ago that Poland causesd WW2.

As Archie Bunker would say, "Them pollocks started the war, everybody knows that! If they had allowed the germans to take free dancing, nothing wouldna happened!"

Plain and simple, WW1 was almost inevitable when Kaiser Bill decided to build a navy to rival Britain's. (...) What a blessing it would have been if, in 1917 before the US got in, an armistice had been arranged. World history would have been substantially different.

Not so simple, the Kaiser was more complex than that: he wanted to have a strong Navy, yes. But did he REALLY want a war? I guess not, the "Willy-Nicky Correspondence" hints that at some point, people in charge just lost control of the situation. When the "powers that be" set the things towards a war, did they really ponder on the consequences of their actions. When they did, it was too late.
Let's take the Spanish-American War, over Cuba - W.R. Hearst told Remington (when he informed everything was peaceful), "You furnish the pictures and I'll furnish the war". After he incited the war, would he have been able to stop it, had he wanted to do it? When everybody was already incensed for a "splendid little war"?

That said, I think would have been different, if an armistice had been settled before the U.S.A. entered the war. Although the States were emerging as an industrial power, and would eventually develop the military industry they had in the beginning of WW II, perhaps they would have had a bit more difficulty in the beginning, and would have had worst material. Patton, MacArthur, Mitchell, and several others served in WW I, and contributed to develop the military between the wars (Mitchell was for me the most important in that period).
What would happened if the U.S.A. had started the war with someone else having defined concepts, weapons, someone like Crozier? He decided well sometimes, but also let personal animosity get in the way.

An armistice in 1917 would not solve the problems, WW II would have happened just the same... and I think it would have been worse.

 

[vikingBerserker]

 

[parsifal]

What a blessing it would have been if, in 1917 before the US got in, an armistice had been arranged. World history would have been substantially different.

Ren you got me on that....how so?

 

[Catch22]

Ren you got me on that....how so?

I think he means that if there had been an armistice then:

1) Germany was in a stronger position, so it wouldn't have had the same demands placed on it as they wouldn't have been "defeated", and it would have been more of a "we're all tired of war, let's say we stop it today" and I think borders would have more or less reverted to the pre-war ones. This may not have been a good thing though.

2) American casualties would have been virtually non-existent.

Correct me if I'm wrong.

 

[renrich]

Well, I believe that WW2 was essentially a continuation of WW1. I don't really believe that the Kaiser wanted a war and the Great War was sort of stumbled into by the participants. If cooler heads had prevailed in 1917 and with an armistice agreed to where everyone went back to the start line, the Russian Revolution might have been avoided, Germany would not have felt it had been shafted and no reparations would have been extracted. A negotiated peace would have taken place. In August, 1936 Churchill is said to have stated," America should have minded her own business and stayed out of the World War. If you had not entered the war the Allies would have made peace with Germany in the Spring of 1917. Had we have made peace then there would have no collapse in Russia followed by communism, no breakdown in Italy followed by Fascism and Germany would not have signed the Treaty of Versailles, which has enthroned Nazism in Germany. If America had stayed out of the war, all these isms wouldn't today be sweeping the continent of Europe and breaking down parliamentary government and if England had made peace early in 1917, it would have saved one million British, French, American and other lives." All conjecture but makes sense.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Well, I believe that WW2 was essentially a continuation of WW1. I don't really believe that the Kaiser wanted a war and the Great War was sort of stumbled into by the participants.

I somewhat agree with that, but I believe it would have happened anyhow. There was too much animosity between most of the nations involved.

If cooler heads had prevailed in 1917 and with an armistice agreed to where everyone went back to the start line, the Russian Revolution might have been avoided, Germany would not have felt it had been shafted and no reparations would have been extracted. A negotiated peace would have taken place. In August, 1936 Churchill is said to have stated," America should have minded her own business and stayed out of the World War. If you had not entered the war the Allies would have made peace with Germany in the Spring of 1917. Had we have made peace then there would have no collapse in Russia followed by communism, no breakdown in Italy followed by Fascism and Germany would not have signed the Treaty of Versailles, which has enthroned Nazism in Germany. If America had stayed out of the war, all these isms wouldn't today be sweeping the continent of Europe and breaking down parliamentary government and if England had made peace early in 1917, it would have saved one million British, French, American and other lives." All conjecture but makes sense.

Interesting take. Not sure if any of that would have possible however.

 

[Marcel]

Blaming England for what ... having an Empire ...? Being the most successful military and trading organization of her time ..?

Come om Gentlemen, this is revisionist nonesense .... etc

Hmmm, maybe a little explanaition is in place here before you calling me a revisionist?

Plain and simple, WW1 was almost inevitable when Kaiser Bill decided to build a navy to rival Britain's. Britain was a maritime nation that relied on world trade for her existence, just like the US today. Germany was not. The dominoes began to fall with Serbia, Austro Hungary, Russia,Germany and France all falling into line. Germany had a plan in place to take out France and in order to eliminate them before Russia could mobilise, they executed the plan which meant going through neutral Belgium. Britain had guaranteed Belgium's neutrality and the fat was in the fire. What a blessing it would have been if, in 1917 before the US got in, an armistice had been arranged. World history would have been substantially different.

Good post ren, partly here you can see that although Britain is usually seen as "the good guys" in WW, they were as much involved in it's coming to be.
Seeing Germany as they major competitor they steered towards a war against the country from about 1900. Don't forget that Grey already announced in 1905 that Germany was their major enemy. He also started secret negotiations with France and Belgium. He also planned against Germany with the aid of Russia (1907). The UK deliberately threw away chances to lessen the tension. For instance, when The Germans started to negotiate with the British in 1912 and Haldane got very positive results, Grey also started to delay these negotiations. So you see, michaelmaltby, Britain was far from innocent they had a fair share of the blame.

Having said this, of course all other countries had as much to do with the outbreak of the conflict. France is not free from the blame (far from that), Russia ditto, Austria dito. You see, all countries were responsible for this war.

The worst part of all is France. They wanted that war badly since their butt was kicked in 1870. They got their war, which they had trying to get for all this years but to their surprise much more then they expected. They then put the blame on Germany, shoving the blame to Germany and demanding for the outrageous Versailles treaty. With their attitude (and a stupid one in my eyes) they helped bring WWII into being.

 

[michaelmaltby]

Ahh, Marcel my friend " ...So you see, michaelmaltby, Britain was far from innocent they had a fair share of the blame..."

Totally agree.

A momentary aside here. Joe Biden said - in a newspaper interview that Russia is " ... on the rocks, banking system won't last 5 years, and that Russia's problem is that it's hard giving up EMPIRE..."

And Empire is exactly what this thread is all about. Who's got it. Who wants it. And how they go about gettingand/or defending it.

There is a viceral quality to events prior to August, 1914. What started - was a war unlike any that had been fought before.

There was a predatory quality to the German industrial-military buildup. As early as the American Civil War Bismark and the General Staff knew that the battlefields of America was where the rules of modern industrial warfare were being written - and they observed first hand.

Germany wanted to be a superpower - there wasn't the A bomb to menace your enemies .. or victims ... with, back then BUT A GOOD FLEET .... move over England

The USA is experiencing 'fluctuations' in its spheres of influences from emerging powers - China - and ideaology/religions - Islam - right now.
Not easy being on top - things keep moving

So the climate in August 1914 was a tinder box of past grieveances, inter family rivalries, previous 'almosts' - and jealosies. And when it blew no body knew the scale - truly understood the scale of warfare between industrial equals - except the Germans [Colonial expeditions opposing native hords with a handful of cannons requires courage but isn't INDUSTRIAL - only one side has the INDUSTRIAL ]

World War 2 is very different. Everyone knows in their guts that it's coming - and how awfully terrible it can be.

So - Marcel I very much agree with your insights, along with Catch22 and Ren. How different it might have been with an Armistis in 1917.

But history is the study of what happened - and for all the reasons cited pro or con by others earlier - in 1914 Germany was ready for war - ready to go on the attack - brook no interference - respect no civilities.

All France knew was the bile of revenge.

Germany wanted "in". Maybe England should have said - sure Kaiser Bill - sure cousin - there's room for both of us.

But that's not like the English ....

But consider - Germany has won through industry and genius what war failed to provide her. Same with Japan. Progress.

Progress costs blood it seems, Carbonlifeform.

MM

 

[Njaco]

So the climate in August 1914 was a tinder box of past grieveances, inter family rivalries, previous 'almosts' - and jealosies.

I would say you forgot one other factor - pride. That alone can cause numerous problems. And the World's powers at that time had tons of misplaced pride.

 

[michaelmaltby]

"I would say you forgot one other factor - pride."

Absolutely - the pride that come only from complete ignorance of what you are wading into. On everyone's part. The German attack in 1914 was as bold and daring as Barbarossa - on a smaller front.

MM

 

[vikingBerserker]

What started - was a war unlike any that had been fought before.

There was a predatory quality to the German industrial-military buildup. As early as the American Civil War Bismark and the General Staff knew that the battlefields of America was where the rules of modern industrial warfare were being written - and they observed first hand.

I believe that is incorrect. The only thing different about WW1 from other wars in history up to that time was hardware related.

When it comes down to root causes, I'm pretty sure we can find other wars that shared the same reasonings.

 

[michaelmaltby]

Viking ... I am sure you can. And in my description of WWI I neglected to give credit to the 1905 Russo-Japan war. A fulcrum. No Asian nation could defeat a Europeam empire .... oh yeah.

I mean no disrespect when I use the word predatory ... if you're going to wage war (1) take it seriously, (2) do it very well. Germany has always qualified in both respects. As highly logical, creative people, once Germany decided on a course of action that they can justify. Like sinking neutral shipping or invading Belgium ... they told their victim. If the victim didn't co-operate (refused to be intimidated) .. well .. we told you what was going to happen. That strategy actually works ... countries ... fold.

I used the word predatory deliberately because ... in the modern industrial context, united Germany set out to build a military presence that would win glory and carve out an Empire. Under different circumstance, Japan did much the same. First attacking China and then Russia ... always the aggressor .. always with the element of surprise.

The fact that there other examples doesn't negate Germany's intention and Germany's style.

MM

 

[vikingBerserker]

The fact that there other examples doesn't negate Germany's intention and Germany's style.

MM

No, but it does negate your statement:

"What started - was a war unlike any that had been fought before."

 

[renrich]

The point that might be forgotten is that Germany was a continental nation and Britain was a maritime nation. When Germany during Wilhelm's reign began to build a navy to rival Britain's, Britain was threatened. Without command of the seas Britain was relegated to third rate status. Germany could continue to be a power without a dominant navy. Britain could not, just like the US today. If the US and Britain did not have a special relationship today, Britain would be very threatened, as well as all other peaceful maritime nations.

 

[Condora]

No, but it does negate your statement:

"What started - was a war unlike any that had been fought before."

Not exactly: the American civil war and the Russo-Japanese of 1905 did not go as WW I, but they gave a "taste" of what was to come. As WW I did for WW II, on air warfare.

 

[michaelmaltby]

"What started - was a war unlike any that had been fought before."

The Civil War and the Russo-Japan war were modern wars - technology-wise. What I meant by the above quote was that it escalated in a way no war before it had ... and that was due to the state of technology, the pent-up animosity, the almost incestuous inter-locking relationships between allies and adversaries etc.

It started off as a conventional war - and ended by toppling the political structures of much of society. Russia-revolution. Turkey-revolution. Germany- almost revolution. Austro-Hungary-toppled. New states carved from old empires. Transformation in the Middle East as England and France try to enlarge influence. Oil becomes a factor - not coaling stations.

All wars are transformational to a degree - we accept that idea. But in August 1914 I don't believe those rattling the sabres had an inking that they were pulling their houses down.

MM

 

[BombTaxi]

The effects of WWI are still with us today in a way that the after effects of WWII aren't. Here in the UK, where there was no revolution as in other countries, the Great War marks a complete historical break. The values and belliefs of Edwardian society simply ceased to exist after the war ended, and were replaced with entirely new ones. Jingoistic nationalism, militarism, and indeed the whole social structure of the pre-1914 era were largely rejected post-1918. The decline of the British Empire also began post-1918 - WWII merely finished the Empire off. The Great War has come to symbolise all that is wasteful for the British people, and it certainly played a massive role in removing the landed and ennobled elite from the dominant position they had held in British political life since the 18th century. There is certainly no other conflict in which the UK has participated which has ever bought about such radical changes in society.

 

[michaelmaltby]

Agreed BT - great summary - though Henry 8th's break with Rome and Cromwell's period as Protector both have profound effects on the Nation and its institutions.

Cheers,

MM

 

[Amsel]

Also the rebellion in the 13 American colonies changed the inhabitants from the english system to a new modern democratic system without nobility. Though they ceased to be Englishmen during the Revolution.

 

[stona]

What did WW2 achieve.The defeat of Nazism,Facism and Japanese militarism. That will do for me. I am neither a warmonger, nor a pacifist; if ever a war was worth fighting that one was.
Steve