Was WWII Inevitable?

[Commodore]

Well, if you're including an alt history like is found in C&C... probably. A major conflict between the Soviet Union and Europe was highly likely from that point in time, though not because of Hitler and not necessarily the conflict we know from history.

That's kind of what I'm asking. Was a global war like WWII inevitable or could a war like that have been avoided altogether? Not neccessarily the one that actually happened, but just a massive global war on the same scale of WWII.

 

[RickFGS]

Well, you could make a case that the German people fell into the same trap that the Western governments did: they believed Hitler when he talked about ´peace´...

Yes, i´m sure that a guy screamming a speach from his guts, making agressive gestures while sweating from his forehead and blamming all that the german people had suffered on the rich jews was clearly a peacefull guy, he really looked like a peacefull nationalist, all those SA/SS troops on the back wearing machine guns and beating sticks were just free loving entrepeneurs and the german people had a lot of repect for the fellow neighbours and no sense of racial superiority at all.

Also, the Mein Kampf thing was only a "guideline", not an actual principal statemnet, he just wanted people to prosper, and he wasn´t elected by the german people noooooo, the 1933 elections weren´t free, right, people were forced to vote for him of course, it´s like they wouldn´t vote for the communist party afterall, the communist wanted redistribution of wealth, those crazy bastards, while the people, even today, only want one thing, to be rich, and if i can´t be rich, then maybe my son will be rich, or my grandson, or even better, i can marry my daughter to a rich family and then she brings the all family into the high society.

Hypocrisy blinds us, people WANT to be rich whatever the means necessary, and if stealing from the jews was the way to get it at the time, so be it, let´s just kill them all afterwards and makeup some excuses like racial superiority to justify it, all crap, it´s always about the money, and many times we see people prefering to elect or follow monsters like Hitler instead of going for an alternative that doesn´t make them rich like communists.

In sum, and back on topic, what i´m saying is that a World War can´t be avoid until people´s hearts start to see what really has value, people, of course we all need money to live and more money to live good, but it´s the mentality of valuing those who have it because they have it and not the way they actually use it and redistribute/invest it, to create jobs and wealth for future generations and in turn even make themselves richer.

If history keeps portraiting Great Men like Alexander The Great (see ? here´s the great again), Genghis Khan, Hitler and so on as great conquerors instead of murderers, people´s mentality will never change, and future wars are unfortanelly in my view sure to happen again.

 

[Verbose]

Rick, you know how Hitler's speeches ended apparently. Any idea how they started out?

They were very elaborate, very consciously staged, and highly effective on the audience. They were built towards a climax. The footage you've apparently seen are all of the finals. If that's all you think his speeches were about, then clearly the Germans were all just idiots. However, that wasn't how Hitler's speeches worked at all, and why they actually were effective.

But if you just see a snipped from the end you won't understand anything at all about how and why that was.

 

[RickFGS]

They were not that elaborate, Hitler was diferent from others because he knew what was in people´s hearts, even today, some of the most sucessfull politians aren´t the best in carisma, knowhow or even the smartest, but they all have one thing in common, they know what´s the true desires of people´s and what´s in their hearts, and Hitler´s speech promissed all of these things.

Now it´s you who are insulting the german people, you think people care about the elaborate speech and circus stage around the speech??? people want to hear the words for what is lurking in their hearts, MONEY, jobs for everyone without necessarily needing qualifications, afterall study is hardwork and costs money, i rather have a friend who gets me a well payed job and not need to study or work too much. And then people want to see those who HAVE the money and power backing up the man giving the speech.

I´m not an old guy, but i´v seen entire audiences of people from all social classes and idiologies fascinated by the words of individuals that contradict themselves during their own speech to reach ridiculous conclusions, but people will follow them because these words have money and power behind, and above all... the promisses of fullfilling their heart´s dreams, (even if you never deliver, they will follow you to the end of the world, if you keep fueling up the hope of reaching the dream), while the speaker who is poorer in wealth/powerfull friends, although many times, a better speaker and wiser, will get totally ignored.

Knowing this, let´s look at Hitler´s promisses:
- German love for regimentation - "Vote for me and i will restablish the army! i will make you masters of the world! I promisse revenge!"
- The elite were afraid of losing their previliges with post war caos, wealthy industrialists and bankers, he promissed - "I will build rebuild the army, i will mechanizite it, roads, railroads, and navy, you will be wealthier beyond dreams!"
- Unemployement of 6 million men, caos, low value of the deutch coin, low moral and national pride - "Vote for me and i will give you jobs! i will restablish conscription and raise the military! i will give you new symbols, new order and uniforms to be proud off!"
- Regional and conflits between german people - "The german land is for germans! Stop thinking and follow me! and i will make you masters of the world! All the free people of the world will be your slaves! "

And, like in every angry mob, there needs to be a scapegoat, a vilan to blaim WHY the country failed in the past...Who better then the rich jews, they controlled great deal of the banks and businesses that the german elite was afraid of losing, PERFECT! Kill them all and make their properties go to the german industrials and bankers! Voliá! Instant dream accomplishment!

Even today, if you go online you can download "Mein Kampf" from a gazillion web sources, but if you search for the works and thoughts of a polititian like Olof Palme, you can´t virtual find any work, and he did more for the people of his country, than any other politician in recent history.

 

[Antilogic]

The course of history is such a contingency-laden monstrosity that calling anything inevitable seems (to me) rather self-important. So no.

While I would ordinarily respond with something like this, major coalition wars occur all throughout history, and I see no good reason not to expect more of them. The alliances, relative strengths, tactics, war goals, etc. can all be different, but I'd still expect some sort of major coalition war to occur eventually.

 

[Leoreth]

Rick, how dare you claim the german people had anything to do with ww2. They were just innocent sheep manipulated by a group of madmen. No way were they at any fault.

Sure, if a German asks other people to get their facts straight about WW2, he must be an apologist.

Keep your strawmen elsewhere, please.

 

[RickFGS]

Rick, how dare you claim the german people had anything to do with ww2. They were just innocent sheep manipulated by a group of madmen. No way were they at any fault.

Hehe, peole always tend to wash their hands afterwards if things go bad and say "hey, it wasn´t my fault, i had to obey, so they were crazy, how was i to know?"

 

[Ajidica]

Hehe, peole always tend to wash their hands afterwards if things go bad and say "hey, it wasn´t my fault, i had to obey, so they were crazy, how was i to know?"

If I were to say the Estado Novo treated its colonies little better then Leopold and was a Nazi government that committed genocide against its citizens, you would tell me to get my facts straight. However, since you apparently view "getting facts straight" as identicle to "whitewashing", any attempts by you to correct my impression of the Estado Novo would (rightly) be viewed by me as whitewashing history.

 

[RickFGS]

If I were to say the Estado Novo treated its colonies little better then Leopold and was a Nazi government that committed genocide against its citizens, you would tell me to get my facts straight. However, since you apparently view "getting facts straight" as identicle to "whitewashing", any attempts by you to correct my impression of the Estado Novo would (rightly) be viewed by me as whitewashing history.

Not at all, i´m not saying that portuguese dictatorship was any diferent, in fact Estado Novo was as bad as you can think of it, of course not as bad as Nazi´s, if you want to compare evil, what i´m saying is that people tend to opress/exploit/kill and whatever is necessary other people, regardless of colour or race, only because they want to become richer fast and not through labour, cooperation, study and mutual prosperity.

What i´m saying in sum, is that people want shortcuts, and that 90% of all evil can be explained if you look at the money reason, you can even deduct that 90% of wars start because someone convinces/forces a nation to invade other, and then justifies with whatever lies are necessary that they deserve to be rich and masters of it all.

What i´m saying is that, until people, regardless of background, race or colour, start valuing people´s lives and life as a gift given to us by God, we will never get rid of wars and evil men like Hitler can still thrive and prosper in the world.

So, and back on topic, if WWII could be avoided? that is what the european comunity is trying to avoid, to generate cooperation, but as you can see by nowadays developments, the initial european union is beeing corrupted by clever politicians and wealthy corporations for their own agenda, rather then peace and people´s prosperity, and as then, the jews were to be blammed, now it´s the southern countries fault, because we overspent and don´t know how to take care of our own house´s finance. All lies, the truth is that, as then, people´s hearts still want the same thing, and as then, they follow those who promisse it to them, even if it leads them into to the end of the world.

 

[Lord Baal]

I have been on an old game kick and fired up Command & Conquer Red Alert. For those who don't know Red Alert is a game that is based on the premise of an alternate WWII in which the Soviet Union is the aggressor instead of Nazi Germany and the Japanese Empire. This is caused by Albert Einstein who, after the real WWII, built a time machine and went back in time to assassinate Hitler before he came to power in an attempt to prevent the war.

This is one of the greatest games of all time, people.

So, while playing the game I started to think about whether or not the Second World War could have been prevented.

I now ask you all: Is there any realistic way WWII could have been prevented? Or was a war of that magnitude bound to happen one way or another?

Yes to the first, no to the second, for reasons I will elucidate later in this post.

The Allied Powers should have known what happens when you humiliate your opponent. Because it happened before, when the German Empire humiliated France in 1871 by demanding insane reparation sums + Alsace-Lorraine, which was the reason for many tensions and a desire for revenge on the french side. But with all that Nationalism still going on, war would still have happened with opposite signs... Ruskies crushing everybody etc.

France and Germany cooperated on a regular basis from as early as 1873 until 1913. The loss of Alsace-Lorraine had nothing to do with French antagonism towards Germany, which was actually based upon the fear that Germany's quick industrialisation and pursuit of colonies would lead to it surpassing France as the dominant Continental European power. Germany's attempts to gain a British alliance also prompted French fears, seeing as how the French Empire was dependent upon British friendship. Alace-Lorraine did provide a very convenient propaganda tool for the French government to use on the French people though.

If the 'Spirit of Locarno' had been more fully followed by the UK, if the UK had stayed more involved in continental geopolitics, and if it wasn't solely the French involved in Eastern Europe, war could probably have been averted for a while.

That said, I'm relying mainly on Kissinger here and whatever I can recall from Dachs and Lord Baal talking about interwar Germany, so I could be mistaken.

Kissinger doesn't really know what he's talking about, unfortunately. Good to see you've been reading what Dachs and I write about interwar Germany though. The problem with the UK wasn't that it didn't have enough involvement, but moreso that it didn't involve itself correctly. It was clearly involved in the Munich Pact, for instance, but not in a good way.

Now, to expand on my points above; World War II was definitely NOT inevitable. Not from 1919, not from 1924, and not even from 1938. The time at which WWII became inevitable, in my opinion, was after March 1939, when Germany occupied Bohemia and Moravia in violation of the Munich Pact. The reason for this is that this is when the military opposition to Hitler became completely sidelined. Several high-ranking officers resigned in protest over Hitler's planned occupation, only to see their compatriots refuse to follow their lead. This eliminated some of Hitler's most spirited and influential opposition, as well as frightening those few anti-Nazis who remained in the military to keep their mouths shut. In addition, those high-ranking officials I spoke of earlier - several of whom were later involved in Operation: Valkyrie - had planned a military coup in sresponse to an attempt to occupy Bohemia and Moravia, but only if they had British support. The British turned them away. Go Chamberlain!

Prior to the occupation of Bohemia and Moravia, Germany had a spirited military opposition to the Nazis, which could have stepped in had Hitler gotten out of hand, as they'd already threatened to do twice. But after March 1939, there was no true opposition to Hitler amongst the elites of Germany. When Hitler called for an invasion of Poland, there were none among the military or Nazi Party hierarchy who could oppose him. So he had his way. Even then, he hesitated slightly when the British refused to live up to his expectations (due to Ribbentrop's totally inaccurate appraisal of the British) of neutrality in late-August. But by that point, Germany's economy was so shattered that it was basically now-or-never for the Third Reich. They chose to pull the trigger rather than slink home with their tail between their legs.

On the second question. Of course a large war wasn't inevitable. There hasn't been a full-blown global war in seventy years, has there? Wars are always the result of contingent events, not historical inevitability. WWII itself occurred due to contingent events in the preceding years of Nazi rule. The failed Anschluss of 1934 kept Germany out of war with Italy, for example, which would later become Germany's closest ally. If Germany and Italy had gone to war over Austria in 1934 - and Mussolini very bluntly and publicly threatened to do so should Hitler make another attempt to annex Austria - then Italy would have handily thrashed its still-weak northern neighbour, which would have put paid to any chance of WWII.

If an event as major as WWII was so dependent upon a series of chance events - Hitler surviving WWI; the failure of the beer hall putsch; Chancellor von Papen convincing Hindenburg to give Hitler power; Hindenburg going senile and later dying without a plausible successor; the failure of the Austrian Nazi Party's coup in 1934; Italy's estrangement from Britain and France in 1936 leading it to seek an alliance with Germany; the French deciding not to smack Germany down for remilitarising the Rhineland in 1936; Chamberlain stupidly coercing Daladier into the Munich Pact in 1938; Chamberlain (again stupidly) refusing to support the conspirators of March 1939; the Poles refusing to grant the USSR free passage over Polish territory to fight the Germans in August 1939; the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact being successfully negotiated; none of the SS who attacked German positions opposite Danzig on August 31, 1939 being recognised as Germans and not Poles by the Wehrmacht - then it is obvious that a global war could easily have been put off through negotiation, the fear of the weaker party, limited conflicts elsewhere, etc..

Some people will say that the USSR had designs on territorial expansion, funnily enough in a manner similar to the video game mentioned by the OP. That's true. But it's also ignoring the fact that the Soviets would have been surrounded by enemies on all fronts, and that no matter how powerful it got it couldn't defeat an alliance of Britain, France, Germany, Italy and Japan, which is what it would have faced had it attempted to export the revolution to Western Europe. As such, Stalin, one of the greatest practitioners of realpolitik in history, would probably have stuck to small-scale, limited conflicts and annexations. He woul have known better than to directly threaten the British Empire, much as he lately knew not to directly threaten the Americans. The Soviets were more likely to tangle with Japan than the West, as happened on several occasions in the 1930s.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

If Germany and Italy had gone to war over Austria in 1934 - and Mussolini very bluntly and publicly threatened to do so should Hitler make another attempt to annex Austria - then Italy would have handily thrashed its still-weak northern neighbour, which would have put paid to any chance of WWII.

So, 1934 Germany was in relation to 1934 Italy considerably weaker than 1940 Greece in relation to 1940 Italy?

the Poles refusing to grant the USSR free passage over Polish territory to fight the Germans in August 1939

I am not sure what to say other than "hugh?" I mean I am generally inclined to trust you on your expertise, but still, hugh?

 

[Ajidica]

Kissinger doesn't really know what he's talking about, unfortunately. Good to see you've been reading what Dachs and I write about interwar Germany though. The problem with the UK wasn't that it didn't have enough involvement, but moreso that it didn't involve itself correctly. It was clearly involved in the Munich Pact, for instance, but not in a good way.

How important was the Treaty of Locarno? Kissinger spent about a chapter and a half on it which indicates that (to him at least) it was important.

 

[Justo]

So, 1934 Germany was in relation to 1934 Italy considerably weaker than 1940 Greece in relation to 1940 Italy?

In 1934 Germany had barely(if at all) started remilitarizing and was still limited to the WW1 treaties.

I am not sure what to say other than "hugh?" I mean I am generally inclined to trust you on your expertise, but still, hugh?

Before the Soviets signed the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact they did attempt to seek an alliance with Britain, France and Poland against the increasingly aggressive Germany(Hitlers ambitions in the East were quite well known by the Soviet leadership). One of the terms they wanted was military access through Poland to be able to engage Germany directly. The Poles didn't trust the Soviets and declined which ultimately led to the Soviets seeking their security through the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact.

As strong and large as the USSR was Stalin was always fearful of other nations and never acted unless he was sure of success or having overwhelming odds in his favour.

 

[Leoreth]

So, 1934 Germany was in relation to 1934 Italy considerably weaker than 1940 Greece in relation to 1940 Italy?

I've read some scenarios that showed Germany would've been barely able to handle Czechoslovakia if it would've come to war over the Sudetenland issue in 1938.

Also, Germany was nearly broke before the annexation of Austria (as Nazi Germany was almost constantly broke) and only Austria's rather large currency reserves helped them to sustain their budget any longer.

 

[Agent327]

Hehe, peole always tend to wash their hands afterwards if things go bad and say "hey, it wasn´t my fault, i had to obey, so they were crazy, how was i to know?"

As I mentioned elsewhere, the (West) German government took full responsibility for war crimes committed during WW II and entered into a program of Wiedergutmachung (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wiedergutmachung).

In 1934 Germany had barely(if at all) started remilitarizing and was still limited to the WW1 treaties.

The second part is incorrect: one of the first things Hitler did after the coup was renounce the Versailles treaty. (He made good on this by unilaterally remilitarizing the Rhineland in 1936, which, given the poor state of the German military force at this time, was his first huge foreign policy gamble, and it was pushed through against the advice of the German High Command. Around the same time the Luftwaffe had been built up sufficiently to provide active support for Franco in the Spanish Civil War.)

 

[Nobody]

To many variables to say. If war was put off in our timeline by continued British involvement after Locarno, the French and Belgians might not have occupied the Rhineland, and so on.
For example, if Britain had stayed involved, Hitler probably would not have tried a reoccupation of the Sudetenland because while France could not have fought Germany alone, British involvement would have tipped the balence in favor of France.

I think russia was ready to help france and britian as well. Germany would have got crushed.

 

[Commodore]

@LordBaal: That was the kind of answer I was looking for and since other posters seem to testify to your expertise, I will trust the accuracy of your response. I actually find it quite heartening to know that war was not inevitable and that it was just the result of a tragic series of events.

 

[Ajidica]

I think russia was ready to help france and britian as well. Germany would have got crushed.

The USSR was pretty much shut out of European diplomacy for most of the interwar years. I don't recall how they were brought into the League of Nations, but it wasn't for very long.
Until the USSR got invaded, it was very much their policy to regard Europe as the land of Capitalists soon to collapse. That began to change once Stalin got situated though and the invasion of Finland.

 

[innonimatu]

none of the SS who attacked German positions opposite Danzig on August 31, 1939 being recognised as Germans and not Poles by the Wehrmacht

Wait, wasn't the whole thing staged?

 

[Marla_Singer]

On August 25th, 1939, Hitler received the French Ambassador in Berlin at 5:30pm to explain him about the situation in Poland. I have a book with the verbatim of this conversation, as it's been sent to the French Ministry of Foreign affairs the same day at 10:30pm.


From this text, I can conclude that Hitler actually did strong diplomatic efforts to avoid war with Britain and France. He called for an agreement similar to Munich's which was immediately refused by London and Paris. As the French Ambassador confirmed that an attack over Poland would immediately lead to a declaration of war by Britain and France, Hitler even added that in such circumstances, Germany wouldn't fire the first bullet.

From the document, we can really believe that Hitler was deeply convinced France and Britain would never declare war on Germany as a support of Poland. It's actually rather unbelievable to read how sure he was about it, constantly minimizing the multiple alerts sent by the French ambassador.