"World War II" as just another standard war

[innonimatu]

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

True about the international reparations. But the german government did succeed in erasing its own internal debt created to finance the war, during the war years. The governments of the victorious allies, on the other hand, kept trying to repay their own wartime government debts.
Another advantage which Germany had from the hyperinflation stint was getting rid of several terms of the Versailles Treaty by forcing and finally winning a confrontation (the french occupation of the Rhur) with the french. Even they were finally persuaded that Germany couldn't be squeezed for everything it had agreed to at Versailles.

Deliberate or not, post-war hyperinflation turned out to be very advantageous for the Weimar Republic government.

 

[Agent327]

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.

Considering the rapid military development during and the geopolitical division resulting from WW II, I fail to see how it wasn't exceptional.

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.

Strictly speaking that is ofcourse correct. But the Allied war declaration was the logical result of the ultimatum issued to Germany. This in itself was the logical result of the Allied guarantee of Poland's borders. Even if the Allies wouldn't stand by their promise this time, Hitler - always playing for time - welcomed an aliied USSR even more than a neutral one.

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.

A remarkably naive speech from the usually so paranoid dictator. He didn't mention, ofcourse, that negotiations had been going on with the Allies as well. But the Allies wouldn't border Soviet territory, and Stalin, gambling here as well, apparently hoped that Hitler would either destroy the Allies or both sides would be considerably weakened as a result. So a win-win situation for the USSR. Unfortunately the gamble didn't quite pay off.

 

[Traitorfish]

Considering the rapid military development during and the geopolitical division resulting from WW II, I fail to see how it wasn't exceptional.

It's not immediately apparent what about these factors implies uniqueness. If you could elaborate?

 

[Tahuti]

A remarkably naive speech from the usually so paranoid dictator. He didn't mention, ofcourse, that negotiations had been going on with the Allies as well. But the Allies wouldn't border Soviet territory, and Stalin, gambling here as well, apparently hoped that Hitler would either destroy the Allies or both sides would be considerably weakened as a result. So a win-win situation for the USSR. Unfortunately the gamble didn't quite pay off.

Stalin hoped to buy time until somewhere in 1942. German defeat at the hands of the USSR would have been almost guarenteed had it really attacked that late.

 

[Ergo Sum]

"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?

I do think the "good war" narrative falls down when you stop thinking of the Allies as acting in "self defence" or in the name of "freedom." France, England, and the US together were responsible for much of the political domination of the global south, and the uncountable oppressions that occured there. Imagining them as blameless before the war seems hypocritical, even if the Anglo-Americans committed "less worse" war crimes than the Axis.

 

[Flying Pig]

I have to say, I'm not sure that trying to read history with a view to aportion praise or blame is helpful or wise.

 

[Cutlass]

I do think the "good war" narrative falls down when you stop thinking of the Allies as acting in "self defence" or in the name of "freedom." France, England, and the US together were responsible for much of the political domination of the global south, and the uncountable oppressions that occured there. Imagining them as blameless before the war seems hypocritical, even if the Anglo-Americans committed "less worse" war crimes than the Axis.

The imperialism of some of the countries wasn't a direct cause of the war, though. When you look at WWI, it was in part the effort to take an empire for itself that drove Germany to be at odds with Britain. Not the empire Britain already had being a threat to Germany. And in WWII the same thing was a part of what motivated Japan. Yes, they were latecomers to empire, and so could not get the empire that they thought they deserved without conflict with the existing empires. But that did not compel them to war. What compelled them to war was their belief that they were entitled to those empires, regardless of the conflict to get them. Essentially they talked themselves into war, not had war forced upon them.

 

[Tahuti]

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.

The irony of this comment is that there was no good side on the eastern front, not even a grey one.

Essentially they talked themselves into war, not had war forced upon them.

Britain and France declared war on Germany, not the other way around. Likewise, while not intending to downplay Japan's actions, what hostile act did Japan inflict upon America before the US oil embargo?

 

[Flying Pig]

An embargo is not an act of war. We have several against various places going on at the moment.

 

[Cutlass]

The irony of this comment is that there was no good side on the eastern front, not even a grey one.

Maybe the Soviets under Stalin was bad too. But they didn't start the war. And they didn't try to utterly destroy the local populations in the areas they occupied.

Britain and France declared war on Germany, not the other way around.

Britain and France only declared war on Germany after there was no way to believe it possible to stop Germany by any other means. They certainly were not instigating the war.

Likewise, while not intending to downplay Japan's actions, what hostile act did Japan inflict upon America before the US oil embargo?

What hostile act did America inflict on Japan before Japan declared war on America? Answer: None. The embargo was in response to Japanese attacks on China. Hostile acts on the part of Japan. The embargo was also an effort to get Japan to stop acts of war against others without going to war on the part of the US. War in the Pacific theater was entirely a war of choice on the part of Japan. They could have, at any point, not had war. But were unwilling to make that choice.

 

[Domen]

Maybe the Soviets under Stalin was bad too. But they didn't start the war.

No but they joined it 17 days after it started and on the wrong side.

and they didn't try to utterly destroy the local populations in the areas they occupied.

Except for the ethnic Poles probably.

It is also worth noting that after 17 September the Red Army was doing everything it could to prevent as many Polish troops as possible from withdrawing to neutral countries (and from there to France, to form a new Polish army, which would continue fight against Germany).

Even Germans were more willing to let the Polish troops go than the Soviets. For example General Anders with his Operational Group consisting of several brigades, negotiated with the commander of German 28. Infanterie-Division the passage across German lines to the south - towards Hungary.

But several days later his forces were attacked by the Red Army and only very few soldiers from his group made it to the border.

Anders himself was wounded and captured by Soviet troops on 29 September 1939.

If the Soviets let the Poles withdraw to Romania and Hungary instead of cutting off their withdrawal routes and attacking all groups which tried to cross the border, the Polish Army in France in 1940 (and after the fall of France - in GB) would have been 3 or 4 times larger than it was in reality.

Not to mention what was the fate of all Polish officers captured by the Soviets - with very few exceptions (like General Anders).

When Soviets negotiated the surrender of the Polish garrison of Lwów on 21.09.1939 - they promised to release all officers, NCOs and men from captivity.

Of course that promise turned out to be a lie after the garrison surrendered to the Soviets on the next day - 22 September.

 

[Icaria909]

I don't believe this war was unique. It has incredible historical significance, representing the confluence of political, economic, social, and moral developments; not to mention the drastic geopolitical change it created in 1945. However, it does not represent any unique changes in war. Civilians have been hurt in many wars, persecution and cruelty has been committed against conquered populations, and many have died in battles. The only major difference in this war was that they were better at it than before.

 

[Tahuti]

Britain and France only declared war on Germany after there was no way to believe it possible to stop Germany by any other means.

In any case, stopping Germany from undertaking an immenent invasion on France and Britain itself wasn't one of them. Britain was unable to face Germany directly and France completely unwilling, despite massively outnumbering the Germans on the Maginot line. What point does it serve to declare war on a nation and risk destruction, then doing nothing?

What hostile act did America inflict on Japan before Japan declared war on America?

You have provided the correct answer without even acknowledging it:

The embargo was in response to Japanese attacks on China (note: not the USA itself). Hostile acts on the part of Japan...

They could have, at any point, not had war. But were unwilling to make that choice.

Just like with Vietnam and Iraq, basically.

 

[Cutlass]

In any case, stopping Germany from undertaking an immenent invasion on France and Britain itself wasn't one of them. Britain was unable to face Germany directly and France completely unwilling, despite massively outnumbering the Germans on the Maginot line. What point does it serve to declare war on a nation and risk destruction, then doing nothing?



You have provided the correct answer without even acknowledging it:



Just like with Vietnam and Iraq, basically.

The correct answer that there was nothing driving Japan or Germany to war except the ambitions of the leaders of Japan and Germany?

 

[GhostWriter16]

Stalin was just as evil as Hitler, but the war still needed to be fought, at least post-Pearl Harbor. I think US involvement pre-Pearl Harbor would have been simple interventionism.

It might have been a better idea not to embargo Japan, but once Pearl Harbor happened, what's done is done. We had to defend ourselves. And we did.

I don't approve of all of our actions, certainly not the draft or the bombings of civilians, but the war itself was between a bad side and a clearly worse side overall. So I can ultimately justify it. I can't justify any of our wars between 1812 and World War II, nor can I justify any of our wars after WWII. WWII was at least justifiable.

 

[innonimatu]

In any case, stopping Germany from undertaking an immenent invasion on France and Britain itself wasn't one of them. Britain was unable to face Germany directly and France completely unwilling, despite massively outnumbering the Germans on the Maginot line. What point does it serve to declare war on a nation and risk destruction, then doing nothing?

Blockading all german trade and forcing them to support the costs of a war footing was not "doing nothing". If the french and british had played their cards right and gone for an alliance with the soviets Germany would have been done in by that strategy in what, three or four years?

 

[Tahuti]

Blockading all german trade and forcing them to support the costs of a war footing was not "doing nothing". If the french and british had played their cards right and gone for an alliance with the soviets Germany would have been done in by that strategy in what, three or four years?

Allying with the Soviet would have made much more sense from an amoral strategic sense. Though that's exactly the point of this thread.

 

[Leifmk]

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

Standing by and letting a single power dominate continental Europe wouldn't exactly be in character for Britain, I'd say.

 

[Masada]

You don't post on SF do you Kaiserguard?

Britain and France declared war on Germany, not the other way around.

After Nazi Germany had declared war on Poland justified using vile, vile, vile means and fully conscious that the British and French had given explicit guarantees to the Poles.

Likewise, while not intending to downplay Japan's actions, what hostile act did Japan inflict upon America before the US oil embargo?

See: the USS Panay. USN SIGNIT intercepts confirmed that it was a deliberate act. The United States could have gone to war on those grounds alone. USN SIGNIT also confirmed Japanese intentions to invade the Commonwealth of the Philippines, the Netherlands East Indies and British Malaya and the Borneos before the embargoes. The embargoes themselves were pitched chiefly as a means of heading off Japanese aggression.

Just like with Vietnam and Iraq, basically.

Riiight. Contrary to what you think, it wasn't an American thing. Condemnation of Japanese conduct in China was universal. Even the freaking Nazis complained. Hell even hardened veterans of the IJA complained to their superiors about the conduct of the troops and the degree of latitude given to them by highers ups to commit atrocities.

They buried those guys alive with thousands of their compatriots by the way.

 

[Tahuti]

After Nazi Germany had declared war on Poland justified using vile, vile, vile means and fully conscious that the British and French had given explicit guarantees to the Poles.

I know. But if that wasn't justified, how was it justified to guarentee a régime which was anti-semitic, authoritarian and overall anti-minority, which the Polish régime was. And besides, how about cosistency? The Soviet Union attacked Poland as well, why didn't Britain and France declare war on the USSR? Besides, Britain and France had their fair share of vileness too, but that doesn't warrant an unprovoked German invasion does it?

See: the USS Panay. USN SIGNIT intercepts confirmed that it was a deliberate act. The United States could have gone to war on those grounds alone. USN SIGNIT also confirmed Japanese intentions to invade the Commonwealth of the Philippines, the Netherlands East Indies and British Malaya and the Borneos before the embargoes. The embargoes themselves were pitched chiefly as a means of heading off Japanese aggression.

Was this before or after the embargo by Britain, the Netherlands and the USA? Oh, and this embargo was only made possible by Western colonial domination of Asia. An independent Malaysia or Indonesia wouldn't have embargoed Japan.

Riiight. Contrary to what you think, it wasn't an American thing.

I've never implied that.

Condemnation of Japanese conduct in China was universal.

By that reasoning, the world should embargo Israel right now. Would that be good?

You don't post on SF do you Kaiserguard?

No, I don't. I'm a little bit too left-wing to do things like that. But comments like these do prove that debating such topics is tantamount to heresy, appearantly.