"World War II" as just another standard war

[Tahuti]

"WWII" (quoted because in reality it was a large collection of large wars with each their own casus belli that only knotted together with the USA's participation) was the quintessential "good war". But was it?

Despite the aggression and heinous institutional faults of the Axis powers, the Allies seem to have their fair share too. So was World War II really the war that needed to be fought between good & evil, or was it simply just another war between empires, that ex-post facto received a moral element to justify subsequent wars such as Vietnam?

 

[Cutlass]

It's fair to say it was a war against empires. And that imperial ambitions were certainly in conflict. But that doesn't change the fact that the aggressor side was truly evil in many ways. Japan's actions in Korea and China were horrific in their own right.

 

[Glassfan]

The "modern" (post 70s) interpretation of World War II includes several reinterpretations that certainly muddy the waters of supposed Allied moral superiority.

One is the recognition that the Soviet Union bore the brunt of the European conflict. That the deathlock between the Wehrmacht and the Red Army - well over 10 million soldiers involved - was the central theatre of the war. And furthermore, that the Soviet Union as an "Ally" was as cruel and destructive as the Nazi forces. As the tide turned on the eastern front, the vengeful Red Army conducted similar atrocities, massacres and war crimes as the Germans had done previously. This has naturally diluted the belief in the allied moral high ground.

Also, Anglo-American strategic bombing is now often treated as an allied war crime by some authors. Even in the mainstream histories (Max Hastings, et.al.) the issue of massive civilian bombing casualties has to be dealt with. To a large extent, this has to do with a progressive shift in our thinking from the old days of enemy civilians to the more modern concept of innocent civilians and the (largely Western) avoidence of collateral damage.

A number of secondary issues also come into play. Internment of Japanese Americans and Canadians, often portrayed as knee-jerk bigotry, is now regularly taught even in high school history classes. The taking of trophies (Japanese skulls, etc.), the questionable destruction of the historical abbey of Monte Cassino, the reported casual and widespread rape and plunder by Western troops, etc., etc. The atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki certainly weren't our best moments either.

On the other hand, as Cutless correctly points out, for the Allies the war was largely a justifiable and defensive response to the aggressive expansion of fascist empire. And certainly the lion's share of war crimes and atrocities, often of an extremely cruel nature, were conducted by the Nazis and Japanese - routinely as official policy. I would strongly disagree that the Allies had their fair share of badness. Any reasonably comprehensive study of the war would overturn such an idea. It certainly was not just another war - it was The War of all time. (so far...)

 

[LightSpectra]

"WWII" (quoted because in reality it was a large collection of large wars with each their own casus belli that only knotted together with the USA's participation) was the quintessential "good war". But was it?

Despite the aggression and heinous institutional faults of the Axis powers, the Allies seem to have their fair share too. So was World War II really the war that needed to be fought between good & evil, or was it simply just another war between empires, that ex-post facto received a moral element to justify subsequent wars such as Vietnam?

You already made this thread, but your original thesis was that the Allies caused it.

 

[Tahuti]

You already made this thread, but your original thesis was that the Allies caused it.

I remember starting a thread like this, but considering it was an old one, and already had a certain starting thesis, I thought it would preferable to start a new one. But yes, I still think that if it weren't for Britain and France's declaration of war against Germany or the war guarantee that led to it, WWII would have been the "German-Polish war".

On the other hand, as Cutless correctly points out, for the Allies the war was largely a justifiable and defensive response to the aggressive expansion of fascist empire. And certainly the lion's share of war crimes and atrocities, often of an extremely cruel nature, were conducted by the Nazis and Japanese - routinely as official policy. I would strongly disagree that the Allies had their fair share of badness. Any reasonably comprehensive study of the war would overturn such an idea. It certainly was not just another war - it was The War of all time. (so far...)

There are always a few wars that have one side that is slightly better than the other, ethically speaking. I'm not trying to downplay such atrocities like the Holocaust or the Japanese occupation of China and the East-Indies. That said, only China, Finland, the USSR and several smaller countries which were invaded by Germany can claim the distinction of being attacked completely free of any provocation. I don't see how Britain couldn't have avoided it, hadn't they issued the war guarantee.

 

[Agent327]

I remember starting a thread like this, but considering it was an old one, and already had a certain starting thesis, I thought it would preferable to start a new one. But yes, I still think that if it weren't for Britain and France's declaration of war against Germany or the war guarantee that led to it, WWII would have been the "German-Polish war".

You seem to be forgetting about the "German-Czech war" and the Anschlusz. Obviously Britain and France share a responsibilty in accomodating Htiler to the point where he thought he could get away with anything. To show him that he couldn't, the Allies guaranteed Poland's borders. Which then was annulled by the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact.

And if it hadn't been for Versailles, Hitler wouldn't have had so much to claim for his Reich in the first place. (So if you want to put the blame on the Allies, I'd start at the Versailles conference and its harsh terms for the losing side of WW I.)

All of which should be taken into consideration when assigning "responsibilty" for WW II.

 

[History_Buff]

It's a bit of a stretch to say that Munich and The Slush were pre-ordained after Versailles. It was much more a case of failure in interwar diplomacy.

 

[Agent327]

It's a bit of a stretch to say that Munich and The Slush were pre-ordained after Versailles.

Indeed. That's why I'm not saying that. Preordination is for a certain religious brand, not history.

 

[Glassfan]

I remember starting a thread like this, but considering it was an old one, and already had a certain starting thesis, I thought it would preferable to start a new one. But yes, I still think that if it weren't for Britain and France's declaration of war against Germany or the war guarantee that led to it, WWII would have been the "German-Polish war".

Given Hitler's well-known and documented intentions to sieze liebensraum and resourses in the east, Poland seems like an obvious intermediate step in the Nazi plan. Even without the Anglo-French guarantee to Poland, a short pause would have eventually given way to the horrific German/Russian war. Meanwhile, continued Japanese expansion in east Asia and the western Pacific would have sooner or later involved America, France, Britain and the Commonwealth. World War II was inevitable given the insatiable territorial ambitions of the fascist powers and would only have been delayed a few months here and there.

Furthermore, IMHO, diplomatic activities such as treaties and sanctions haven't the same moral weight as actual invasions and hostilities. TITS, a diplomatic slap in the face is not an act of war.

 

[Cutlass]

Having Britain and France unwilling to get into the war would have only kept those 2 countries, and maybe Belgium and the Netherlands out of the war. The rest of the war would still have happened. So ironically only the least destructive part of the war might have been avoided, considering how much more savage the war on the Eastern Front was than the Western.

 

[Tahuti]

You seem to be forgetting about the "German-Czech war" and the Anschlusz. Obviously Britain and France share a responsibilty in accomodating Htiler to the point where he thought he could get away with anything. To show him that he couldn't, the Allies guaranteed Poland's borders.

The treaty of Munich was a mistake, obviously, but that doesn't mean the most popular alternative or the actions that were taken subsequently were right.

And if it hadn't been for Versailles, Hitler wouldn't have had so much to claim for his Reich in the first place. (So if you want to put the blame on the Allies, I'd start at the Versailles conference and its harsh terms for the losing side of WW I.)

Versailles didn't really ruin the German economy as much as you would like to believe. After the great hyperinflation, Germany managed to pay back the war reparations, which were denominated in German marks anyway. The Great depression and the stock crash of 1929 that perceded were the real reasons for Germany's economic collapse that led to the rise of Nazism.

 

[Verbose]

Having Britain and France unwilling to get into the war would have only kept those 2 countries, and maybe Belgium and the Netherlands out of the war. The rest of the war would still have happened. So ironically only the least destructive part of the war might have been avoided, considering how much more savage the war on the Eastern Front was than the Western.

Maybe not even that. Revenge on France WAS a Nazi, and nationalist German in general, proirity just as much and Lebensraum in the east. Leaving an armed France in one piece on the western border was seen as a dangerous liability, which needed to be dealt with. Except that way it might have come about through a German declaration of war instead.

Possibly it leaves Britain and its empire outside of things, but I think that's about as "good" as it might get.

 

[klar_heiland]

The treaty of Munich was a mistake, obviously, but that doesn't mean the most popular alternative or the actions that were taken subsequently were right.



Versailles didn't really ruin the German economy as much as you would like to believe. After the great hyperinflation, Germany managed to pay back the war reparations, which were denominated in German marks anyway. The Great depression and the stock crash of 1929 that perceded were the real reasons for Germany's economic collapse that led to the rise of Nazism.

Reparatiins weren't set up in the hyperinflating paper mark, but in gold mark.
So this didn't lower the reparations.

 

[Domen]

Given Hitler's well-known and documented intentions to sieze liebensraum and resourses in the east, Poland seems like an obvious intermediate step in the Nazi plan.

And giving away 50% of Poland to the Soviet Union seems like an obvious step back in this Nazi plan.

Having Britain and France unwilling to get into the war would have only kept those 2 countries, and maybe Belgium and the Netherlands out of the war.

France rather not, because Hitler wanted to take revenge on France for WW1 and Versailles.

 

[Tahuti]

Reparatiins weren't set up in the hyperinflating paper mark, but in gold mark.
So this didn't lower the reparations.

Are you confident? AFAIK, there were no explicit provisions on the value of the mark.

 

[Agent327]

The treaty of Munich was a mistake, obviously, but that doesn't mean the most popular alternative or the actions that were taken subsequently were right.

I'm not sure what you're arguing now... unless it is that whichever path the Allies took they were to take the blame for WW II. That seems to be a bit circular for an argument.

Versailles didn't really ruin the German economy as much as you would like to believe. After the great hyperinflation, Germany managed to pay back the war reparations, which were denominated in German marks anyway. The Great depression and the stock crash of 1929 that perceded were the real reasons for Germany's economic collapse that led to the rise of Nazism.

Hitler's demands weren't economic however. (Although the surge in support for the NSDAP certainly was a result of economic misery in the middle classes.)

And giving away 50% of Poland to the Soviet Union seems like an obvious step back in this Nazi plan.

A temporary measure precipitated by the Allied declaration of war. Keep in mind that Hitler (not "the Nazis") gave the order to prepare Barbarossa while England was undefeated; militarily speaking a curious step, that was initially not welcomed by German High Command. (The idea of a practical Lebensraum only fully developed with the advances of the Wehrmacht in the East - and dwindled just as fast as these advances grinded to a halt.)

 

[Domen]

A temporary measure precipitated by the Allied declaration of war.

Allied declaration of war was on 3 September 1939 and Hitler agreed on giving Stalin 50% of Poland already on 23 August 1939. Something which took place on 3 September could not "precipitate" something which took place earlier - on 23 August of the same year. Unless Nazi Germany had a time machine, of course.

Moreover - a considerable thaw in Soviet-German relations was visible already since the so called "Chestnut speech" of Joseph Stalin on 10 March 1939.

In that speech of 10 March 1939 Stalin expressed a desire to become friendly with Nazi Germany despite ideological and system-wide differences. He accused Western Democracies of inciting to war and of attempting to drag the Soviet Union into future war against Nazi Germany. He also claimed in that speech, that the Anti-Comintern Pact was in fact not signed against the Soviet Union, but against Capitalist States, such as England, France or the USA.

===========================================

I think that even if the German-Polish war did not turn into WW2 on 3 September 1939, the next target of Hitler was still going to be France - not the Soviet Union. Hitler wanted revenge on France for WW1 and the so called "humiliation" of proud Germany by France after WW1.

On the other hand, Hitler did not want a war against GB. Just to say that the Nazis had many sympathizers in Britain, especially amongst the British aristocracy. British Union of Fascists and National Socialists was a completely legal political party in GB until 1940, while for example in Poland (which is considered as having rather friendly relations with Germany after 1933, up to some point of course) Nazi parties were banned and proscribed by the government.

One of British Nazi sympathizers - Unity Mitford - came to Germany and became Hitler's "girlfriend". He surely didn't want to destroy her homeland.

When Britain declared war on Germany on 3 September, Unity tried to commit a suicide (almost succeeded) - but that's another story.

 

[Flying Pig]

Hitler certainly didn't want to take on the British Empire, but my view of it is that he underestimated Chamberlain - he had seen the policy of appeasement and assumed that this meant that Britain would avoid war at any cost, but in fact it had been an excuse to buy time for a hideously ill-prepared Britain to be able to fight against the much more militarised Germany. Chamberlain was quite prepared to go to war, and I think his backing of the ultimatum over Poland took Hitler by surprise.

 

[Lord Baal]

Hitler certainly didn't want to take on the British Empire, but my view of it is that he underestimated Chamberlain - he had seen the policy of appeasement and assumed that this meant that Britain would avoid war at any cost, but in fact it had been an excuse to buy time for a hideously ill-prepared Britain to be able to fight against the much more militarised Germany. Chamberlain was quite prepared to go to war, and I think his backing of the ultimatum over Poland took Hitler by surprise.

Actually, Chamberlain even tried to weasel out of the guarantee for Poland, leading to the now-infamous cry of "speak for England!"

 

[Traitorfish]

It's a tragic comment on this place that the topic outlined in the OP lasted precisely three threads before being abandoned in favour of alt-hist and minutiae.


Anyway, no, I don't think that the Second World War was exceptional. Unusual, yes, but not fundamentally removed from any other imperial conflict. A rare grey-and-black war in a history dominated by grey-and-grey, black-and-black and occasionally blue-and-orange wars, but even then I wouldn't say that the greyness is much less dark than usual, even if it might appear so relative to the midnight-black of their opponents.