Who started WW2?

syscom3 said:

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.

Click to expand...

Think SYSCOM has it. The Imperial Japanese were an offensive military. They, as a matter of course, never developed the logistical trail that became commonplace amongst the USN during the Pacific War. As such, they really weren't up to sustained operations against a fixed enemy base. When they tried, the battle turned into a morass for Japanese Naval and Air power (Guadalcanal '42-'43). They were more of a raiding arm than a "come to stay and slug it out" type. There were no support carriers to fly in replacement aircraft and crews, a limited seaborne resupply capacity and usually a small amphibious force. They weren't a "bombard then land" kind of force but a "sneak in late at night and rush ashore" type. Wake Island is a good example of this.

Whereas the US Navy could and did show up, shell, bomb and support invasions for upwards of 2-3 months under heavy attack losing a ship every two days (Okinawa). It was a Doctine for which the Japanese had no answer, even when using suicidal attacks.

Also, the Japanese Army was not a mechanized force to any extent. The battles that were fought in the Pacific played to the strengths of the Japanese Army. If the war between the US (plus allies) and the Japanese had been fought out in a dessert, the results would've been much different. The US Military drove everywhere (for the most part). The Japanese walked. That gives the US military a huge advantage.

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:

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.

Click to expand...

Bingo.

I don't think it would have been a toss-up as to whether the U.S. would have gone to war with Germany had Germany not declared war. Just like the U.S. public accepted the connection between war in Afghanistan and war in Iraq, they would have accepted the connection between Japan and Germany. To defeat Japan, Germany must be defeated as well...that's what FDR would have told the public. Any excuse to jump in with our old buddies in Britain. It was only a matter of time and justification. I agree with you, timshatz, that the justification would be found on the water.
Haztoys, I don't think that FDR was like most Americans in thinking that our nation was immune from an attack during WWII. He knew it could easily happen, and I think many can agree that he wanted it to happen, as well.

I would not necessarily say he wanted it to happen, but he needed it to happen so that he could the US into the war.

Terminology.... That's pretty much what I meant; he knew there was no other way.

That I agree with.

I guess one justification for invading Poland that I learned a while ago was that it was originally a state of Germany but was taken away at the Conference oF Vienna after the Napoleanic Wars, Adler?

Polish history begins in AD 966 when Misezko I began writing it's history. Beforehand Poland did not exist, but was occupied by the Polanie, Wislanie, Pomorzanie and Mazovian Slavic tribes. All other Slavic tribes were incorporated into German expansion, or the Czech state.

In AD 1000, the Polish church was established with agreement from Otto III, Holy Roman Emperor, and could now turn to the Pope for protection. And would not fall under German influence.

AD 1024, saw the Coronation of Boleslaw I Chrobry which created Poland as an official independant kingdom.

Now, skipping a few hundred years, to the 18th Century. After years of war the Polish Republic (Poland and Lituania) was weak. It only had a 24,000 man army, and had three great enemies on it's borders. Russia, Prussia and Austria were all poised to invade.
Russia used military pressure from it's 330,000 strong army to influence the Republic, which first occured in 1768 when the 'Cardinal Rights' were forced upon the Republic.

Catherine II split the Republic in 1772 with Austria and Prussia. The Republic took advantage of a war between Russia and Turkey to reform it's forces and build an army of 100,000 men. They also wrote up Europe's first constitution which did not go down well in Russia, so Russia invaded in 1792 which ended in the Republic's defeat. What was left of the Republic after the first partition now became a Russian protectorate. Poland was now under the control of Austria, Prussia and Russia completely.

In 1794, Poland broke out in rebellion and Warsaw, Krakow and Wilno were liberated. But a combined Prussian and Russian assault reconquered all the lands. In 1795 the three powers once again moved deeper into Poland, and calved the state completely. Poland was effectively destroyed, and was wiped off the European map. Prussia controlled Warsaw and lands up to Niemen River.

Napoleon then burst on to the European scene, and Poland were quick to become his allies. In 1797 Polish legions were set up in Italy, and helped Napoleon defeat Austria, Prussia and Russia in 1806-1807. The Prussian-annexed parts of Poland became the new Poland under the Duchy of Warsaw, and a Polish government was formed under Napoleonic influence.

Napoleon then attempted on Russia in 1812. His failure there brought Poland back on the brink of devestation. This was brought about in 1813 when Napoleon was defeated at Leipzig in 1813. The Congress of Vienna in 1815 then handed some of the preowned lands in Poland back to Prussia. The remaining lands became the Kingdom of Poland, attached to Russia. Tsar Alexander I was the king.
In 1830, Poland uprose and dethroned the Tsar. They held out against Russia until 1831 when the massive Russian army defeated them. This led to slaughter of thousands of Poles, and the closure of all that was Polish. Many Poles went into exile, mostly in France.

Austria and Prussia then began reform in their Polish held lands, handing much land over to the peasants. Bringing those areas into the new age. But in the Russian zone it remained much the same, and Poland was oppressed by the large nation. Many revolts and uprisings followed, but all were crushed.

During World War I, Poland decided to ally itself with Germany and Austro-Hungary against Russia. Come 1915, Austro-Hungary and Germany had pushed Russia out of all of Poland. And many local governments were set-up in these lands.
Poland then refused to fight for the Central Powers against the West. When Russia pulled out the war, the Western Powers sought to create a more powerful Poland and came to their aid. An amazing stroke of luck for Poland saw all three controlling powers (Russia, Germany [Prussia] and Austria) defeated.

The Treaty of Versailles then struggled to recreate Poland's borders before the paritition. And this led to many disputes. Poland was handed lands that were not hers, Russia took lands, and the Czechs were not happy. Poland was handed Pomerania, but Gdansk (Danzig) was kept a free city under the League of Nations. Upper Silesia was handed over after many Polish uprisings, but East Prussia and the rest of Upper Silesia remained in 'Polish' terrority. The biggest problem remained in Ukraine which was under Polish control before the partition but Russia believed was hers. And Ukraine wanted to be independant.

But, in any case, the only lands Germany wanted back was Pomerania, Danzig and Upper Silesia. This mainly was known as the 'Polish Corridor' which was what the whole dispute was about. I'm sure some of that is wrong, but that's all I can remember! I had to argue with a Polak once about his own history... Well, alright some of the information I dug in my books for.

Back to the thread's original question about France spearheading harsh retribution against Germany- I remain convinced that most of the conditions that prevailed in Germany to spawn a Hitleresque outlook were created externally by France and the allies. Whether Hitler himself rose to power or not is not the only key factor. If it wasn't him it would have been another malcontent whose thinking had been molded in the atmosphere created by "the allies."

When you say "allies", please exclude the US on that. President Wilson opposed anything like a harsh retribution or reperation.

While that is absolutely true, syscom, Wilson was so damn concerned with his ridiculous League of Nations that he did little to deter the European allies from enacting those harsh retributions on Germany. He disagreed with the reparations, but he did little to nothing to stop them. Is he therefore free of guilt? I think not.

After the war ended, the US rapidly went into its traditional isolationist mood.

Wilson had no business nor backing to try to block the harsher of the Versaillis treaty points.

Just because the US didnt want to get involved in dictating post war Europe does not mean we are responsible for the actions of France and England.

The US is innocent when it comes to the Treaty or Versailles, but France was the as*hole in the story and they caused WW2. Hitler would never have come to power was it not from that treaty and its bull. France got a rude awakening during WW2 because of that and like we here in South Africa always says; the wheel turns / History repeats its self.

France should not say they were innocent during WW2, they caused it when they tried to grind Germany into the ground and destroy it after WW1.

What happend to the innocent is bad and the Jews, but history always repeats its self.

Henk

the way i see it is that the ToV is an inanimate object, incapable of starting anything, it needed someone to act on it, Hitler, to start the war, thus it was Hitler that started WWII, the treaty on it's own would have done no harm (atleast in terms of war) if no one acted upon it........

Just because the US didnt want to get involved in dictating post war Europe does not mean we are responsible for the actions of France and England.

Click to expand...

what about all the league of nations crap? you can't say you played no part in that, you set the damn thing up, then don't join, leaving Britain and France to do all the work, which there was no way in hell either of us would, we would've been happier without the league, it wasn't exactily the fair democratic organisation it claimed to be either, how could it be when you wouldn't let Germany or Russia join simply because they couldn't be trusted!

The league of nations was not a precursor in the start of WW2 (even its inaction in the 30's meant nothing).

The unreasonable demands for reperations by Britain and France were one of the contributing causes.

The US had nothing to do with the dictates of peace by your country and France.

The U.S. public may have went back into its traditional isolationist mood, but Wilson didn't. He thought he could counter the Treaty of Versailles with the League of Nations. In fact, Wilson stated that one of the reasons that he wanted the U.S. to join WWI is so that the postwar world could be modeled after America, with America playing a very important role. I'm not saying that the U.S. is responsible for the actions of the European allies, but we're not completely innocent, either, in my opinion.

I don't think you can just blame France for the Treaty of Versailles. They may have pushed for reparations more than the other allies, but England and Italy didn't feel much differently, and none of the allies did much to stop the harsh reparations.

"the way i see it is that the ToV is an inanimate object, incapable of starting anything, it needed someone to act on it, Hitler, to start the war, thus it was Hitler that started WWII, the treaty on it's own would have done no harm (atleast in terms of war) if no one acted upon it........"
Excellent point, lanc!

Well, of course Wilson is the one who set up the League of Nations, and he is the one who wanted the U.S. to join it. The U.S. Senate, however, had other ideas. And the Senate had nothing to do with setting up the organization. If Wilson had not be so goddamn stubborn and if he had compromised just a little bit, the U.S. would have ratified the Treaty of Versailles and joined the League of Nations. Considering that the League of Nations was run by European counties, they could have at any time allowed Germany and Russia to join. However, they would never have done that any more than the U.S. would have. You can't criticize the U.S. for something that the European nations would also have done had they been in charge of the League of Nations originally. Why would you let nations which cannot be trusted join an alliance based on one's word and comradery?

I must point out that no matter how bad the Treaty of Versailles seems in comparison to modern day defeats, ninety years ago it wasn't half bad. If Germany had lost that war half a century earlier it would have lost Germany to the victourious nations. Europe was still land open to capture, and still was until after World War II.

The only thing the Allies did wrong after World War I was to not occupy Germany. Had the Allied forces stripped the German army of it's colours, and their weapons, then occupied Germany in zones of protection just like after World War II it would have told the German people that the German army had lost, and Germany had lost. Instead the Allied forces lay down demands, but let the German army march home with all their pride and armoury. This let Hitler, and the German people, believe that the German army was not defeated but the politicians behind the army let them down.

World War I may well have been fought with tanks, planes and machine-guns but it was still fought in a world where there was a right of conquest. The Napoleonic Wars were only 100 years previous, and that mindset still existed. Which makes the Treaty of Versailles an extremely light punishment, even if it did bankrupt Germany.

President Wilson opposed anything like a harsh retribution or reperation.

Click to expand...

But the US did insist on repayments of war debts.

The position at the end of the war was that large parts of France and Belgium had been destroyed by war. Areas occupied by the Germans had been looted (all industry, machinery, anything of value etc). The allies had funded the war largely through borrowing.

There had been no major fighting on German territory, and Germany had funded the war largely through looting.

Without reparations, Germany would have emerged from the war having lost, but in a much better position than it's enemies, with it's industry intact and little external debt. The western allies would have been crippled by debt repayments to the Americans.

The British put forward a plan to abandond all debts repayments and reparations arising from the war. The US government vetoed it.

By insisting on debt repayments (for loans that had already been spent in the US buying munitions) the US made reparations essential.

All the allies share the blame for Versailles. All were out to secure their own positions after the war.

But for a really harsh treaty, see the one the Germans imposed on Russia, the treat of Brest-Litovsk. Russia had to cede about a third of it's population, more than half it's industrial areas and almost all it's coal mining areas to Germany and German client states.

The repayment of war debts was not a pecurser for the second world war.

The debts were to be paid by Britain and France, not Germany.

The harsh conditions on Germany were dictated soley by Britain and France, not the US.