Why did WWII happen ?

Brian Foley

New Member
Pre revolution Russia was literally owned by the affluent West Russia provided Western financiers and Industrialists with a region to exploit for its resources , cheap labour and investment . In 1917 revolution this lucrative market was lost . In between the wars the German industrial/financial complex , decided to take a gamble and invade Russia , this gamble they hoped would turn their fortunes around . Their plan was one of turning Russia into a colony for the personal benefit for exploitation of its industrial/financial complex . In 1933 the German industrial/financier complex installed the Nazis in power and put in place a rearmament plan .

The German plan was this use Poland as a springboard for the invasion of Russia , Sept 1 Poland was invaded . However the Anglo/Franco industrial/financier complex had their own plan they also wanted Russia , their gamble was to allow Germany to invade Poland , but they would sit behind the Maginot line , letting the Germans be lulled into a false sense of security by believing that England and France were just going to sit their and not risk another WWI trench bloodfest . Then Germany would invade Russia and at an opportune time when these 2 nations were almost exhausted England and France would jump in taking the prize .

The Germans saw through this plan and invaded France unexpectedly , Germany did not invade Britain because it gave Germany an excuse to Russia as to why they placing troops in Romania to forestall any British invasion of the Balkans . June 22 1941 Russia was attacked . Now the American industrial/financier complex jumped in seeing that her two main rivals England and France was finished , they saw an opportunity to gain control of Western Europe . Dec 11 1941 Germany declared war on America , America instituted the lend lease on England , bankrupting this country and turning itself into a colony of American finance . US airpower turned Germany to dust while the armies of Germany were cannibalized in Russia at Yalta America allowed Russia Eastern Europe while America secured the Affluent West .
 
Basically Germany felt that it had not been beaten in WW1 but German Army had been sold down the river by it's politicians, and basically they felt it was unfinished business. There was also a lot of resentment of the land grab made by France, and other lands that had gone to Poland and other small mid European countries.
 
LeEnfield said:
Basically Germany felt that it had not been beaten in WW1 but German Army had been sold down the river by it's politicians, and basically they felt it was unfinished business. There was also a lot of resentment of the land grab made by France, and other lands that had gone to Poland and other small mid European countries.
Exactly!

The Germans felt that they were not defeated in the battle of WWI and it was a political retreat and the main reason for this was that the two colonial powers: UK and France did not forced German military to sign the memo of defeat despite the advice of American General to do so!

The other factor was that in Germany; worsened living conditions, restrictions imposed by Allies and burden of war dept were the reasons that gave rise to Anti-semitism and Extremism in the shape of Nazi movement, which led to the rise of Hitler to power!

And then the invasion of Poland, which actually started the war.
 
LeEnfield said:
Basically Germany felt that it had not been beaten in WW1 but German Army had been sold down the river by it's politicians, and basically they felt it was unfinished business. There was also a lot of resentment of the land grab made by France, and other lands that had gone to Poland and other small mid European countries.

Small Correction

The only French land grabs was the Alsace-Lorraine and this was only because the Germans annexed it on the conclusion of the Franco-Prussian war. The French merely retook what was their's. The French did occupy the Rhineland but this was only to extract the coal that was repairations for the Damage Germany had caused. France never made a territorial claim to the area.
 
ww2

i belive world war two happened because there were three nations rising to power to some degree.

germany.....which was lead by adolf hitler at the time, was under a sense that they lost a war and they must beat the ones that that lost to,they also wanted land in poland and other countries to expand their new germanic empire, and they also wanted to exterminate all of the inferior races to "the regular german populous".

Italy....which was ruled by benito mussolini, the country was basically under fascist rule which in this definition posted below is:
Fascism:
A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.
in other words....it was similar to germany in certain ways. the italian dictator= benito mussolini, was also trying to conquer countries in order to create an empire and control vast regions of land and resources.

and then we have japan, led by Hirohito (which is the name of the japanese emperor says a history website) who started a war with china in order to control a larger empire, and then
japan entered the second world war after leaving the league of nations in the year 1933 after committing atrocties against the country of china.
the reason japan bombed pearl harbor was the reason that the united states cut off the oil supply for their war machines, and also to rid the united states of its pacific fleet......


to be honest....i belive ww2 came out of greed, revenge, and racism....would anybody agree?
 
LeEnfield said:
Basically Germany felt that it had not been beaten in WW1 but German Army had been sold down the river by it's politicians, and basically they felt it was unfinished business. There was also a lot of resentment of the land grab made by France, and other lands that had gone to Poland and other small mid European countries.

You write as if all Germans belong to some collective. Germany therefore "felt" one particular way. This viewpoint is extremely simplistic. German society was divided into a large number of political parties and an equally large number of ideologies, philosophies, etc. The communists and socialists in fact outnumbered those on the conservative right. Even the conservative right was divided into democratic and non-democratic groups such as the Deutsche Volkspartei and the Deutschnationale Volkspartei. The former included men such as Stresemann -- a man who helped broker the peaceful return of Germany to global politics in the 1920s. The latter tended more in the traditional Prussian direction. Diversity characterized German society and not any collective consciousness.

It is generally correct that many in Germany hated the treaty of Versailles. It is also true that many French citizens hated the outcome of the Franco-Prussian war. People generally disliked defeat in the age of nationalism. Here the German population exhibited a normal western reaction to historical events.

The old "stab in the back myth" is totally overused. The French state also went through a tough struggle in understanding and accepting their defeat in 1871. An inner search is normal under these conditions. Some Americans have devoted their lives to assessing the Vietnam debacle and why America lost. The "stab in the back myth" was normal in my opinion.

The land issue is different. Conservatives like Stresemann saw Allied policy for what it was -- an attempt by statesmen to increase the wealth of their own countries and neutralize Germany. The victors divided up all of Germany's colonies and simultaneously announced the sovereignty of nations as an ideal of the League of Nations. The Allies also altered borders and placed millions of Germans under foreign rule where they were terrorized. Post-1918 Allied policy was characterized by hypocrisy and avarice. German socialists, communists, anarchists and others did not really care all that much. They wanted to wage war against the old order.

You can only explain WWII by mentioning Hitler and the nazis and Allied reactions to their plans. I will keep this brutally simple. Hitler wanted to create a large German empire. He therefore built up a military and invaded a few countries on the German periphery. Stalin acted in a similar manner and both in fact joined in the division of Poland. Why is the German invasion of Poland mentioned as the start of WWII? Why is it that the Soviet Union's part is ignored?

Here lies an important reason for WWII. The British and French delared war on Hitler's Germany for the invasion of Poland. These governments found the German annexation of Poland unacceptable. Stalin's annexations were ignored. Allied perceptions are therefore more important than Hitler's actions. It amounts to this: German military adventures were unacceptable. The adventures of other states (Italy in Ethiopia, Japan in China, the USA in Central America, Stalin in Poland) were tolerated. Only Germany was not allowed to behave like other powers. The Allied response counts more than anything else and it speaks volumes on attitudes towards Germany and why the war broke out.

Ollie Garchy
 
Ollie Garchy said:
You can only explain WWII by mentioning Hitler and the nazis and Allied reactions to their plans. I will keep this brutally simple. Hitler wanted to create a large German empire. He therefore built up a military and invaded a few countries on the German periphery. Stalin acted in a similar manner and both in fact joined in the division of Poland.

He also began the mass extermination of everyone he didn't like, including German citizens. Genocide is never a good policy.

Ollie Garchy said:
Why is the German invasion of Poland mentioned as the start of WWII? Why is it that the Soviet Union's part is ignored?

There is no Soviet Union anymore, they were beaten.

Ollie Garchy said:
Here lies an important reason for WWII. The British and French delared war on Hitler's Germany for the invasion of Poland. These governments found the German annexation of Poland unacceptable. Stalin's annexations were ignored. Allied perceptions are therefore more important than Hitler's actions.

I think someone finally broke down and read Hitler's intentions for the World in "Mein Kampf."

Ollie Garchy said:
It amounts to this: German military adventures were unacceptable. The adventures of other states (Italy in Ethiopia, Japan in China, the USA in Central America, Stalin in Poland) were tolerated. Only Germany was not allowed to behave like other powers. The Allied response counts more than anything else and it speaks volumes on attitudes towards Germany and why the war broke out.
Ollie Garchy

When Germany, Italy, and Japan allied and let their intentions of World domination be known, that was the handwriting on the wall. Blitzkreig and mass exterminations of people in death camps was not acceptable to the rest of the world. The fact that Hitler was insane and almost assassinated by his own trusted leaders speaks volumes as to why Germany could not be allowed to expand death camps all over Europe.
 
Brian Foley said:
Pre revolution Russia was literally owned by the affluent West Russia provided Western financiers and Industrialists with a region to exploit for its resources , cheap labour and investment .
Do you have any figures for the Russian GNP actually owned by the west in this period.
In fact do you have any figures to support this statement at all
In 1917 revolution this lucrative market was lost . In between the wars the German industrial/financial complex , decided to take a gamble and invade Russia , this gamble they hoped would turn their fortunes around . Their plan was one of turning Russia into a colony for the personal benefit for exploitation of its industrial/financial complex . In 1933 the German industrial/financier complex installed the Nazis in power and put in place a rearmament plan .
While it is true the industrial/financial leaders of Germany were fearful of a communist take over in Germany itself, and so gave their backing to Hitler, I have never read a single creditable source that agrees with your view that they wished to invade the Soviet Union.

The German plan was this use Poland as a springboard for the invasion of Russia , Sept 1 Poland was invaded . However the Anglo/Franco industrial/financier complex had their own plan they also wanted Russia , their gamble was to allow Germany to invade Poland , but they would sit behind the Maginot line , letting the Germans be lulled into a false sense of security by believing that England and France were just going to sit their and not risk another WWI trench bloodfest . Then Germany would invade Russia and at an opportune time when these 2 nations were almost exhausted England and France would jump in taking the prize .
If they were going to allow Germany to invade Poland, why did they declare war, when they did invade Poland ?

The Germans saw through this plan and invaded France unexpectedly
The German plan may have been many things, but 'unexpected 'it wasn't


Germany did not invade Britain because it gave Germany an excuse to Russia as to why they placing troops in Romania to forestall any British invasion of the Balkans .
Germay didn't invade Britain because it didn't have the naval capability to do so. Also, the Luftwaffe got its butt kicked in the BOB :)

June 22 1941 Russia was attacked . Now the American industrial/financier complex jumped in seeing that her two main rivals England and France was finished , they saw an opportunity to gain control of Western Europe . Dec 11 1941 Germany declared war on America ,
So America decided to gain control by getting Germany to declare war on them ? :bang:

America instituted the lend lease on England , bankrupting this country and turning itself into a colony of American finance .
The war bankrupted Britain (not England. England hasn't been a separate country since 1707), not the USA.

US airpower turned Germany to dust
The RAF did more than their fair share
at Yalta America allowed Russia Eastern Europe
'Allowed' ?
and just how were the Americans going to remove them without another major war ?????
while America secured the Affluent West .
God Bless the USA ( and the rest of the western allies ;))
 
Last edited:
Ollie Garchy said:
Here lies an important reason for WWII. The British and French delared war on Hitler's Germany for the invasion of Poland. These governments found the German annexation of Poland unacceptable. Stalin's annexations were ignored. war broke out.

Ollie Garchy
Two reasons why the Soviet invasion of Poland was ignored.
Firstly, to quote a famous US president "One war at a time, gentlemen please !"
Britain and France had gone to war against Germany only because they had to. They knew that beating Germany would be hard enough without taking on the Soviet Union as well.
Secondly the Soviet Union only took the part of Poland that had been taken from the Soviet Union by the Poles in their invasion of the Soviet Union in the 1920's. Territory which had never been accepted by Britain and France as belonging to Poland.
 
Missileer said:
He also began the mass extermination of everyone he didn't like, including German citizens. Genocide is never a good policy.

So did Stalin, who got off far more lightly than Hitler did, because Stalin was an 'ally'.


Missileer said:
There is no Soviet Union anymore, they were beaten.

Rather pedantic and unnecessary statement. There was a Soviet Union around for 46 years after the end of the war and the nation is essentially still around in Russia, which was the political, ideological and military centre of the old Soviet Union anyway.


Missileer said:
When Germany, Italy, and Japan allied and let their intentions of World domination be known, that was the handwriting on the wall. Blitzkreig and mass exterminations of people in death camps was not acceptable to the rest of the world. The fact that Hitler was insane and almost assassinated by his own trusted leaders speaks volumes as to why Germany could not be allowed to expand death camps all over Europe.

Blitzkrieg is a the name of a military tactic which was then copied and used by the Allies. Mass exterminations of people in death camps was also a feature of one of the Allies. Hitler was only 'insane' after the onset of Parkinson's began to take a grip on him. Before that, he was as sharp and intelligent as any world leader, however repugnant some of his policies and beliefs were.

IMO the reasons for WW2 stem from the ideological and personal ambitions of just one man, Adolf Hitler, exploiting a situation whereby Germans felt they had been harshly dealt with after the end of WW1 and a Germany on the edge of economic collapse.
 
IMO the reasons for WW2 stem from the ideological and personal ambitions of just one man, Adolf Hitler, exploiting a situation whereby Germans felt they had been harshly dealt with after the end of WW1 and a Germany on the edge of economic collapse.
I reckon I'll just say: well put Doppleganger. And to avoid another generalization; the concentration camp was a Brittish invention from the Boer war. The Germans just added extermination camps in the equation, but that was an evolvement of the original concept.
 
redcoat said:
Two reasons why the Soviet invasion of Poland was ignored.
Firstly, to quote a famous US president "One war at a time, gentlemen please !"
Britain and France had gone to war against Germany only because they had to. They knew that beating Germany would be hard enough without taking on the Soviet Union as well.
Secondly the Soviet Union only took the part of Poland that had been taken from the Soviet Union by the Poles in their invasion of the Soviet Union in the 1920's. Territory which had never been accepted by Britain and France as belonging to Poland.

My response:

(1) Poland was never freed and fell under Soviet control for 40 years. The Cold War was not a second war. Some Cold War historians like Eisenberg in fact argue that the Soviets and Americans simply divided the world in the form of an unarticulated but real agreement.

(2) Did Britain/France have to declare war on Germany? Helping Poland proved impossible. The decision backfired. Poland fell in 4 weeks. France fell in 6 weeks. Arguing that Britain ultimately won the war, and trying to lay credit on some type of longterm plan, would be an historical distortion. A whole series of political pressures forced Chamberlain's government to declare a war in defence of Poland. That the western Allies were "caught off guard" is highly likely. The armies of Britain/France sat back even though they outnumbered the Germans in terms of planes, trains and automobiles (and everything else). The point is simple. Nothing was done to save Poland. Why use Poland as an excuse?

(3) While I agree with the direction of your post, namely that the Allies planned and hoped that they could defeat Germany in the manner of a preventive war, this notion does great damage to the "just war thesis". WWII historiography is strange because of this. Think of it this way. How is it possible to use Auschwitz as a reason for the 1939 declaration of war when the horrible death camp was not even "in action" until early 1942? How is it possible to use the war against Soviet-Russia as a reason when nobody could forecast when Hitler would attack? The issue in 1939 remains Poland.

Ollie Garchy
 
Doppleganger said:
So did Stalin, who got off far more lightly than Hitler did, because Stalin was an 'ally'.

Yep! One deranged heathen at a time.

Doppleganger said:
Rather pedantic and unnecessary statement.

Oh, I think it's very relevant and necessary since the USSR was a world threat. And, by the way, overusing a word like "pedantic" is not a good idea, it smacks of pseudo-intellectualism.

Doppleganger said:
There was a Soviet Union around for 46 years after the end of the war and the nation is essentially still around in Russia, which was the political, ideological and military centre of the old Soviet Union anyway.

There was a USSR is the key statement here, if you think Russia is anywhere near where the Union was militarily, you are mistaken. President Reagan raised the stakes and the USSR fell like a house of cards. As for their politics and ideology, I think the Russian brand of Marxism is dead and buried.

Doppleganger said:
Blitzkrieg is a the name of a military tactic which was then copied and used by the Allies. Mass exterminations of people in death camps was also a feature of one of the Allies.

I think I'll ask for references on this statement. of mass exterminations by the Allies because I don't believe it. If you're trying to match the holocaust with anything perpetrated by the Allies, you are ignoring written, oral, living, and filmed history.

Doppleganger said:
Hitler was only 'insane' after the onset of Parkinson's began to take a grip on him. Before that, he was as sharp and intelligent as any world leader, however repugnant some of his policies and beliefs were.

The fact that the man drew his first breath at birth led to the deaths of millions of people. Since he chose suicide rather than just punishment suggests to me that he was still able to reason.

Doppleganger said:
IMO the reasons for WW2 stem from the ideological and personal ambitions of just one man, Adolf Hitler, exploiting a situation whereby Germans felt they had been harshly dealt with after the end of WW1 and a Germany on the edge of economic collapse.

I certainly can't argue with that one.
 
Missileer said:
I think I'll ask for references on this statement. of mass exterminations by the Allies because I don't believe it. If you're trying to match the holocaust with anything perpetrated by the Allies, you are ignoring written, oral, living, and filmed history.

Sorry Missileer, this argument is illogical. Your view means the following: if we don't talk about an event, it never happened. The problem here is simple. The western Allies and Soviet-Russia, like all states, do not emphasize their atrocities. Why would they?

There are often two basic directions taken when dealing with Allied crimes against humanity and they smack of neo-nazi revisionism: (1) "it ain't never happened" or (2) the Germans or Japanese or whomever deserved it.

This simplification is on the way out. Over the last 10 years, quite a few historians have turned their attention to the Soviet Union. There are two reasons for this: (1) the Russian archives were unlocked and (2) the current generation has discarded the leftist tendencies of the late 1960s.

The scope of Stalin's crimes were truly horrific. I have tried in earlier posts to point this out. One point, however. Historians are supposed to show WHAT happened and WHY they happened. Historians are not moralists who try to juggle war crimes and then pick the worst culprit. These types of comparisons are interesting activities that we can pursue here.

I can also assure you that Doppleganger is not ignoring "written, oral, living, and filmed history". The flood of this type of material is however in German for obvious reasons.

Here is a good English language account of the Soviet military's actions in Germany:

Norman M. Naimark, The Russians in Germany: A History of the Soviet Zone of Occupation, 1945-1949 (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1995).

Ollie Garchy
 
Stalin's worst crimes were against the Russian people. Luckily for historians, the Germans and Japanese were prolific filmakers and photographers of their crimes against humanity, thus all the hard facts about the third reich and rape of China by the Japanese. As for Soviet occupation of East Germany, the Russians just chalked that up to "we can give as good as we get."
 
Missileer said:
Stalin's worst crimes were against the Russian people. Luckily for historians, the Germans and Japanese were prolific filmakers and photographers of their crimes against humanity, thus all the hard facts about the third reich and rape of China by the Japanese. As for Soviet occupation of East Germany, the Russians just chalked that up to "we can give as good as we get."

My response:

(1) Stalin killed the following people in addition to the "Russians": Ukranians, Poles, Hungarians, Bulgarians, Albanians, Finns, Latvians, Lithuanians, Estonians, Germans, Rumanians, Croats, Czechs, Slovakians, etc.

(2) Killing your "own" people? That is still a crime as bad as killing "other" people. Or do you think that Bundy was less a murderer because he only killed (and partially ate) Americans?

(3) "We can give as good as we get". This barbaric philosophy is still illegal and counter to world law and the laws of war. I have never seen the following caveat in the Geneva Convention or any other legal document: "The killing of civilians is permitted under the following circumstances...(a) as a tool of vengeance, (b) a demonstration of power, (c) for fun"....well, you get my point.

Ollie Garchy
 
Missileer said:
Oh, I think it's very relevant and necessary since the USSR was a world threat. And, by the way, overusing a word like "pedantic" is not a good idea, it smacks of pseudo-intellectualism.
Seeing as this thread is about why WW2 happened, I don't think it has any relevance to the topic at hand. 'Pedantic' just happened to be the most approriate word I had to hand. I'm not sure why you attach that label to it - it's just a word after all. And I only used it once.

Missileer said:
There was a USSR is the key statement here, if you think Russia is anywhere near where the Union was militarily, you are mistaken. President Reagan raised the stakes and the USSR fell like a house of cards. As for their politics and ideology, I think the Russian brand of Marxism is dead and buried.
Again, this has no relevance to the topic at hand. Your reply smacks of jingoism if I'm honest.


Missileer said:
I think I'll ask for references on this statement. of mass exterminations by the Allies because I don't believe it. If you're trying to match the holocaust with anything perpetrated by the Allies, you are ignoring written, oral, living, and filmed history.
I don't have much to add to what Ollie Garchy posted but one of the 'Allies' in WW2, a certain Mr Stalin, was not a very nice man.
 
Ted said:
I reckon I'll just say: well put Doppleganger. And to avoid another generalization; the concentration camp was a Brittish invention from the Boer war. The Germans just added extermination camps in the equation, but that was an evolvement of the original concept.
The myth that the concentration camp was invented by the British is actually WW2 Nazi propaganda.
The term was first used to describe prison camps used by the Spanish military during the Cuban insurrection (1868–78 )
At the start of the 20th century there was quite a fad for their use.
In fact, they were even used by America in the Philippines (1898–1901),
 
Last edited:
Ollie Garchy said:
Stalin acted in a similar manner and both in fact joined in the division of Poland. Why is the German invasion of Poland mentioned as the start of WWII? Why is it that the Soviet Union's part is ignored?

Here lies an important reason for WWII. The British and French delared war on Hitler's Germany for the invasion of Poland. These governments found the German annexation of Poland unacceptable. Stalin's annexations were ignored. Allied perceptions are therefore more important than Hitler's actions. It amounts to this: German military adventures were unacceptable.
Ollie Garchy

Stalins annexation were not ignored by the west. Fighting against Germany was enough for Britain and France. After all they remembered 1914-18. Both countries made attempts to provide an alliance similar to 1914 with Russia.

Both Britain and France supplied equipment to the Finnish in the Winter War against Russia.

Germany wanted and started a war of aggression. You could argue that the people of Germany didnt want a war, the reaction of 1914 may not have been repeated, but there was support.

Germany waged a war aggression with racist overtones. It seems hard to argue that Germany was not an aggressive racist state during world war 2.
 
Back
Top