Who started WW2?

And that hit it on the nail. Haztoys you are correct though that in order to Understand why WW2 started you have to understand WW1.

For years I could understand it all....But the German end of thing never paned out ...

England ,,France... USA...Russia...

Even Japan ... If the European can colonize ...So can we ...There mine set was (and still is ...sorry) that there race is above all other peoples...Not right ...But I understand the mine set that was going on ..

Spending time in Europe ..Like I do ....10 + trips a year ..I import used motorcycles in to Europe from the southwest USA...

The Nazi's getting power never seam to work out in "my" head .... So I ask some German's ....And was told to study WW1...

WW1 is forgotten these days ...And is the reason this world is ware we are today ...Good or bad...

More so then WW2...."I feel" .....Could be wrong and there's a lot of different way of looking at it ...I know ...

David

I pretty much see it as you do.

syscom3 said:

Im going to open a thread on this book.

Its the best book about the battle for Midway ever written.

Click to expand...

It would be a great book to discuss but I don't know how many people have read it. Only 6 months old and not yet in paperback. Plus, it is a book that needs to be digested and considered. There are a ton of details in it.

On the good side, it is a version of revisionist history that is actually worth reading. Most of it is crap. But this is pretty good, well researched and not politically motivated.

I will have to order the book for my collection and read it.

schwarzpanzer said:

Dang! - I was just about to start, I feel like I've been gagged now...




I reckon that this reasoning was behind Barbarossa, can you imagine Stalin going 1st...

(Though the Soviet people would likely have overthrown him befoore then, or he'd have already killed any possible Soviet fighting force)


Also the Winter War thing, I feel Britain was (rightfully) terrified of the Soviet Union and Stalin.

- It took a nutter like Hitler to counter a nutter like Stalin.

Click to expand...

There is a theory out there that Stalin was lining up to invade Germany in 42 and Hitlet's attack was pre-emptive. Not sure how much I put into that one but I've heard it before.

On a related note, a guy named Liddell-Hart wrote a book on Strategy. In it he theorizes that Hitler's mistake was to attack Russia directly and not use an indirect approach (LH is really, really big on the indirect approach). He believes if Hitler had gone through Egypt, crossed the Suez, and across Palestine and into the Middle East, he would have solidified his oil supply, cut the British off (with a combination of subs/airplanes out of French Africa) from their dominions, and essentially surrounded Russia. Also, the Med would've become an Axis Lake, Turkey and all of the Balkans would've become defacto Axis Allies (no need to invade in 41).

In that alternative history, it is possible for the Cold War to start in Poland in in 1939 with Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia staring at each other. England wouldn't have survived long after the collapse of their Middle East possesions.

Just a little fuel for the fire of the thread.

PS- The Great Pacific war goes on as scheduled and the results of that one are no different. With possible exception of India/Britian in the CBI.

I think that England would have survived mainly due to shipments and help from the US in that scenerio.

timshatz said:

It would be a great book to discuss but I don't know how many people have read it. Only 6 months old and not yet in paperback. Plus, it is a book that needs to be digested and considered. There are a ton of details in it.

On the good side, it is a version of revisionist history that is actually worth reading. Most of it is crap. But this is pretty good, well researched and not politically motivated.

Click to expand...

I opened a thread for the book.

In no way is it revisionist. It simply explains the IJN version of the battle using IJN documents.

If Hitler and Japan refrained from attacking the US, thn the US would have stayed out of the war. Support England of course, but only through material aid.

I've long believed that if the Japanese had only attacked the European colonies of Asia, then the US would have stayed out.

I too believe that same thing to an extent, I just believe that at some point the US would have entered any how because of FDR.

I dont buy it.... America would have had to enter the war in Europe, just like Adler said.....

On the eve of Pearl Harbor, the US was still bitterly divided. I dont see any US involvement in the war in Europe unless Hitler made a major attack.

For the Pacific, as long as Japan did not attack The PI, then the European colonies would be at the mercy of the Japanese. The US was simply not going to go to war to defend European colonies.

There are theories that FDR knew about Pearl Harbor before it happened. Whether or not those theories are true, FDR knew that the U.S. needed to get involved in the war, and he would have found a way with or without a major Axis attack. All that was needed was a bit of public approval and rally. Or we would have entered because of the same financial motivations that caused us to enter WWI. Granted, with the Great Depression, it would have taken longer for those motivations to spur action, but it would have happened eventually.

On the eve of Pearl Harbor, the US was still bitterly divided. I don't see any US involvement in the war in Europe unless Hitler made a major attack.

Click to expand...

How long do u think the US would have sat around while merchant ships flying the ol red white and blue were sunk by the dozens???

It was inevitable, and someone with ur intelligence syscom should understand that....

And Delusi makes a very valid point, the US needed a War for the economy...

I agree Les. The US was not going to stand around forever.

I dont neccessarily believe that FDR knew about Pearl Harbor in advance, I do however know that the US new something was up and the government did not act accordingly.

syscom3 said:

In no way is it revisionist. It simply explains the IJN version of the battle using IJN documents.

Click to expand...

In calling it revisionist, I mean in terms of rewriting what Americans see as the history of Midway. Fuchida's writings are the basis behind the Myths of Midway that are considered the accurate assessment of the battle by Americans (and probably most non-Japanese). Fuchida's book came out in the early 50s and is taken as gospel because it got there first. Later Japanese accounts dismiss the book outright. But in the US, we pretty much missed it all. That, at least to my mind, leads to a revising of history. Hence, revisionist.

It is unfortunate, but revisionist history has gotten a very bad name due to the efforts of rewritting the Holocost and Atom bomb. Given the slapdash, politically motivated perspectives that occurred dealing with these subjects (and plenty of others), the tag of revisionist history is about as popular as a porcupine in a nudist colony.

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:

I agree Les. The US was not going to stand around forever.

I dont neccessarily believe that FDR knew about Pearl Harbor in advance, I do however know that the US new something was up and the government did not act accordingly.

Click to expand...

I gotta believe the US was going to get into the war at some point, but it was in no hurry. The US was bitterly divided, so much so that it factored into Japan's assessment of American resolve to fight. In 1940, the law authorizing the draft passed the house by only one vote. The OHIO Plan (jokingly referred to as "Over the Hill IN October") was rightfully seen as a step towards war and also seen as a neccessary evil given the shape of world events. The US was going to be a force in the European war, it was simply a question of how.

I've heard from several sources that Roosevelt saw Germany (given their technological and industrial capacity) a greater evil than Japan. Had Japan struck south in 12/41, leaving US possessions alone, the US probably wouldn't have gone to war with them. However, even if Japan does take the Dutch possessions (primarily the oil fields), not attacking US possessions (specifically the Phillipines) would leave a major threat from their greatest potential enemy squarely across the lines of communications to the Home Islands. For an island nation with few natural resorces, that would be totally unacceptable.

Germany, on the other hand, was a greater threat but was somewhat wise to the potential (if not the actual fact) of American capacity as an apponent. When war did come, the Germans overestimated US production in 42, but then seriously underestimated the capacity in years 43-45. Hitler did the Allies a favor by declaring war on the US on 12-10-41. He solved something of a dilema for the US. How to get into the war with Germany and have the population mobilized. It is a critical factor in a Democracy going to war. In terms of military history, it is one of the great blunders.

But, assuming Japan attacks and Hitler doesn't screw up, the actual entry of the US into the war with Germany is a tossup. How, when and where this occurs is an unknown. The odds of the Naval War being the instigator are the highest. Ground contact is unlikely, as is Air contact. Only by lack of opportunity. It is possible that an event like the Zimmerman Telegraph could happen. But the safe bet is a growing tension between the US and Germany in the Atlantic. But I believe it would've taken a couple of years beyond 10/41 to get there. Maybe by '43. Simply because the US would've focused on Japan, who had attacked her, first. When Churchill went to sleep on 12-7-41 knowing he had won the war, he wasn't out of the woods yet. He needed Hitler to really save his *** 3 days later in his declaration of war.

I can agree with you on that. I think the only reason that FDR was not really pushing for entry into the war as early as 1940 was because of 2 reasons: 1. Public support would not have allowed for it, and 2. the US military was not ready for it.

As they say ...History is written by the winner ... I "think" Churchill said that..??

I think Churchill and Stalin know about Pearl Harbor....

I do not think they told FDR.... I would think if you knew it was coming ..

You would of tried to stop it ..Or met the Japanese out to sea at least.. And if FDR wanted war and let them attack..

Why would you let them sink the Pacific fleet ..? ..You could of attacked them as they attacked us out to sea... And not let them get to Pearl Harbor... Or try not too...And still had a reason to get into the war..And saved the Pacific fleet..

I think FDR is like most Americans ...."It will not happen to America" ..And were still that way ...

I have never herd a good reason for the aircraft carriers being out to sea on that day...All "I" have ever herd is .."They were out to sea" ... Thats the big point that all the "FDR Knew of the attack" people point out ... Not that there's not a good reason for the "flat tops" to not be there...Just I have not come across it .... I'm sure the Navy was not just on a "Flat top joy ride that morning... They plan these things..LOL..I know that...

And if I'm going to let Japan into start a war ... And just pull the Aircraft carriers out ..And leave the Battleships...That was smart ...

Churchill and Stalin knew ...You bet ...From what I've read...(Just because someone can't spell does not mean they can't read...One has nothing to do with the other...I'm a auto repair shop owner..And have a nice Lady who does all the paper work..You will come to see if I'm at work ..My posting is better ..Why ..I have someone around to help..LOL. I do not sit and write books all day...I always find it funny when I get flamed on my spelling on the fourms ...Thats like me flaming someone because they do not know how to fix there car or weld...Yes I give all my customer a hard time because they do not know about transmissions......They should "I" do ..!.."What are you dumb or something"... We all have something were good at...And not good at..Spelling is not one of my good points ..Sorry.. I'm not upset at all .. Trust me I've been down this muddy road a time or three.. ) .... And after reading this Fourm ... I'm not so sure a trust what I read in a lot of books...Not good..

And is what I do not understand is .."How come the Japanese just hit Pearl Harbor".... From what I understand Hawaii could of been taken...? ..Maybe not?

Why just hit and run ...? Even with The US having Hawaii... It was hard to get close to the Japanese at the start of the war...The Japanese I'm sure knew that.?? If the Japanese would of took Hawaii ..We would of never been able get near them to fight them ..I guess Japan was thinking this would be EZ ....And the American's were in the same frame of mind..Like we always are... WW2 was one big under estimation on ALL sides.. I've come to see...Most war is "I" guess...Wonder if President Bush feels that way..

And Stalin realy knew about Pearl .... He was the one keeping the biggest eye on Japan ..After the Russo-Japanese War you bet he was keeping a eye on them ..From what I've looked into

Flame away......

Have a good day

David

The Japanese never had the sea lift or aircraft carriers available to invade Hawaii.

Their priority targets were in Malaya, Indonesia and the PI.

Even if they wanted to Invade hawaii at any time following Dec 7,they would have been repulsed.

If they had a tough time invading tiny Wake island even when they had total supremecy over a lightly defended force, then what in the world could they have done against a huge defending force with room to maneuver and defend in depth.