The birth of WW2, why did it start?

We have discussed about many specific features of ww2. I don't know if this is discussed earlier but I like to open it.

In general most people know the ideological and military reasons that contributed in igniting ww2. Discussions are also based on these ideas.

I'd like to add another interpretation about the reason why ww2 started.

When you look at the worlds ''superpowers'' of 1939 you come to the conclusion that there were six. Great-Brittain, France, US, Germany, Japan and the Soviet-Union. (superpowers in military, industrial, economic terms)

Two of these superpowers had a lack of natural resources and secure lines to retreive these from outside it own ''zone of influence''. The two countries were Germany and Japan.

One superpower, the Soviet-Union, was still recovering from ww1, the civil war and the invasion of Poland, GB, France and the US. The Soviets were still busy with implementing Lenins version of marxism in the society and at the same time mass industrialising its economy. The Soviet-Union had however one major advantage; in their ''zone of influence'' all the necessary natural resources were available in large quantities.

The other three superpowers had about the monopoly of all other sources of resources. The US had in practice controll over the continent America and its resources. Great-Brittain had its Commonwealth with its resources and France had its colonies with its resources. These three powers had common interests an a common agenda.

Germany and Japan were heavily dependant on import of resources from sources controlled by GB, France and US. This was a structural and dangerous disadvantage for Germany and Japan.

It was obvious that Germany and Japan needed secure sources without being dependent if they wanted to remain a superpower or to become one. Germany had learned a bitter lesson in 1929. In the crisis of 1929 Germany was sucked in because the Weimar republic depended heavily on US deliveries of natural resources. Japan learned its lesson because of the frequently changing US policy towards Japan wich meant delayed or postponed deliveries of essential natural resources.

Before WW2 broke out in military terms the economic war already existed for many years. In Europe this was fought out in terms of export/import restriction, production limits in the colonies and by the french and british effort to build a economic wall around germany by signing economic and political treatise with eastern european countries with natural resources.
GB and France tried to influence the steel trade between Sweden, Norway and Germany robbing Germany from its main steel source. GB stopped in 1934 export of rubber to germany. Many more of these economic pressure means were used by France, GB and ultimately the US. The options for the germans were limited to two, 1 surrender 2 attack.

In Asia it was fought out by using a blockade of all possible resources to Japan. The principle contester of Japan in asia was not GB nor France nor the Netherlands but surprisingly the US. In the agreements of Rapallo in 1922 the superpowers France GB and US defined their "zone of influence" and Asia was not in the US zone. Historically the US had nothing to look for in Asia. It was a result of the colonisation of the Philipines and many Islands in the pacific that brought the US to Asia.
The political war between Japan and the US started when the US immigration laws literly described the japanese immigrants as unwearthy for US citizenship. This was considered as a deliberate insult towards Japan.
Economicly the war started in 1931 when the US interfered publicly in the China-Japan war. From that year on the US started to isolate the economy of Japan by refusing to deliver essential resources. This culminated end 1940 begin 1941 when the US, GB and France announced that they would not deliver any oil anymore completing the total economic blockade. Negotiations between Japan and the Netherlands East-Indies about oil contracts failed because the US threatened the Dutch to stop supplying military hardware and seize the Dutch gold stocked in the US federal bank fortress.

Japan had strategical reservers for about a year so it could have sit it out for one year. After this year the Japanese would have had only one option: to surrender or negotiate a very unhealthy treaty. Although the US never declared war officially to Japan it had done it by using economic method's and supporting Japans opponent on the mainland of Asia; China.



Do you think that these economic features of ww2 had such a influence like I just described or are you convinced the birth of ww2 was in the treaty of Versailles and the ideological military arguments as ventilated in the first part?
Or do you think that the developments in Europe and Asia have nothing in common?

 

Economic considerations played a very important part in the starting of WW2.
Hitler already said in "Mein Kampf", that Germany had to capture natural ressources and become autarctic if she did not want to less and less powerfull.
He wanted to get these ressources by conquering Russia.
This had nothing to do with Versailles.For Hitler, changing the european order established at Versailles was important, but not the final goal.

I think it is credible that GB, US and F used some kind of "economic sanctions" against Germany .
For France for example, the more weak Germany was, the bether it was.

That's how international relations worked, and partially still work today.

 

The harsh terms of the Treaty of Versailles also laid the seeds for the next war. By humiliating the Germans, essentially for fighting so skilfully for so long, the Allies ensured that Germany would want revenge and would be ready and waiting for a rematch. The Nazis found this kind of atmosphere most conducive for the recption of their doctrines, such as they were.

 

The cause of WW2 was WW1, simply put. After this great war order was hardly restored; the great power of the world had shifted but the old powers didn't realize it; political crisis roamed as countries democraticized or became communist. On top of that, an unbeaten German people were humiliated by weaker victors to contribute to the rebuilding of France and the UK at the expense of their own remaining economic powers. When this unstable situation exploded into the crisis of the late 1920s and 1930s, it became clear that nothing was fair in the world and nothing was settled by WW1. Economies as well as governments were sick; something would either break it all open or miraculously settle it all, but either way the present order had to be dismissed.

This situation bred everything else, from national socialism to fascism and imperialism. All other reasons for the start of WW2, like the one Anton mentions, all derive from the unstable balance of power established after WW1 - the war that never ended anything.

 

I feel that although WWI gives some of the reason why WWII started, the explanation should also be searched for earlier on, such as the Franco-German war of 1870.

Christian

 

Yes, but that would draw us so much further back that we could just start blaming Charlemagne for WWII... There lies the origin of the troubles between France and Germany.

 

Anton,

I agree with very little of your preamble. How about, instead of WWII being caused by the Western super-powers, principally the U.S. in your view, depriving Germany and Japan of natural resources, one considers that it was a combination of aggression, greed, idealogy, racisim and revenge that drove Germany and Japan (and the USSR) to launch the war. The Western powers tried everything from appeasment to economic sanctions, which are so much in favor today, to restrain Germany, Japanese (and USSR) expansionism.

 

I don't think you can hail the French and British for trying to prevent war after ensuring that it would erupt by signing the treaty of Versailles. They are ultimately to blame, no matter what they tried later.

 

You have a good point, Versailles was certainly motivated by revenge, but don't forget Wilson was against the treaty, he considered it too harsh, but was outvoiced by the other members of the Entente. Still I think ultiamte responsibility lies with the aggressor nations, Germany and Japan. I'm not that sure that the USSR wouldn't have started something in 1942 if the Geramns hadn't. That huge army amy have nothing but the Warsaw pact of the '40s, but Finland, the Baltic, and Poland all argue against Stalin's peaceful intentions.

 

If you think that then Britain and France are responsible for almost every war, in the last 600 years. Ok so most we did start but not all of them.

 

Of course I'm not blaming you for all when I'm blaming you for one.

Canambridge, you can say that the agressors are the real evildoers here, but then it leads you to the question of how they became agressive. A large part of the answer lies in the treaty, and this is why I skipped that part and got right to the treaty as a cause of WW2.

 

THE PRICE (and other radom thoughts)

Before we get into a round for French and Brit bashing we should remember the price that was paid during WW1. The French were nearly bled white, the north, their main industrial area, was in ruins. The 'squeeze till the pips squeak' did have alot to do with revenge but it also had even more to do with economics, by 11/11/18 France was close to collapse.

I'm afraid it was always going to easier for America to take a more relaxed view of reperations. Although American loses were respectable for the length of time actual involved they weren't within shouting distance of Frances dead. There was also the fact that France was basically at the wrong end of a huge transfer of wealth. France had borrowed massively from the UK and the UK borrowed massively from the US and frankly America wanted its money back.

Another factor that added to the German desire for a rematch was a difference in perception of now the Great War ended. In 1918 most German soldiers were still on foreign soil. From the German point of view WW1 was a draw and being treated as a defeated nation did not go down well.

Later UK and French leaders did recognise the terms forced on German had been too harsh. However by then Hitler was in and they were working from the false assumtion that they were dealing with someone who wanted to avoid war.

Conclusion

Nobody came out Golden, no one country is responsible for WW2. Either through action or inaction the all western allied helped to create the conditions that lead to WW2

 

Good post Ebar! Of course I wasn't after any French or Brits bashing, because you can't blame all the British or French for the Treaty, and thanks for pointing out that there were indeed reasons for the harsh terms. Nevertheless, the treaty was so harsh and indeed imposed upon a nation that felt, in spirit, that it was for from defeated, that it could not but put fuel to any fire that might erupt.

This is actually why I blame the Treaty for everything; Germany was treated not only as the agressor even though Wilhelm II had absolute power, but also as the losers, which the people didn't feel they were. I'd say that rage is a natural reaction to being declared two negative things that you are not. Especially if the wave of nationalism of the past century made you one of the most powerful nations of Europe and the world, and taught you to behave like it.

 

Cause of war

There has been a similar discussion going on on the Warships1 board.

IMO, the Triple Entente and USA forced Germany to pay reparations it could never afford, a leading (but not sole) cause of Germany's economic collapse, bringing forth a generation of Gemans desperate to cling to anyone promising a better life and to return a sense of pride to the German people.

If my time machine is still active... here's what we should have done. End of First World War, all nations determine, rightfully that Germany was a leading, but not sole cause of the war. The concept of punishing the German people is dropped, and replaced with real attempts to rebuild Germany (everyone working alongside Germans). Basically what the west did to Germany in post-1945, should have been done in post-1918.

http://p216.ezboard.com/fwarships1discu ... ic&index=8

 

Versailles was a harsh treaty, but if you consider what german plans for Europe were if Germany had won, there is no comparison, Germany wanted to control all of Europe.

And the peace treaty the germany forced the russians to agree upon(Treaty of Brest Litowsk)was incredibly hard, russians loosing big territoried and were forced to supply Germany with foods while their own people were starving.
Compared to this Versailles wasn't hard.

Maybe the german people had the impression not having lost the war, but that was an illusion.In october 1918, general LUdendorff told german governement that the war was lost, and that further resistance would just lead to unecessary killings.

The problem with Versailles was that it was harsh enough to provoke revenge feelings in Germany, and not hard enough to make such a revenge impossible.

 

Re: Cause of war

If I recall correctly, the Weimar Republic actually managed to cope with that ( remember the deflation and everything ? ). It was the crash at the American stock exchange in 1929 which caused the economic collapse of a Germany which finally was starting to stabilize herself.

The Versaille treaty was in any case not the cause to WWII. The cause to WWII was primarily the same as the cause to WWI and more or less to the Prussian agressions during the 1860s-70s as well; A German sentiment of superiority and a social-darwinistic view on the purpose and historical goals of the German people, the German imperialism. According the the German historian and member of the Reichstag Heinrich von Treitschke was the German people the finest among the white race and destined to rule over all other peoples, and war was an institution established by God and the way to test a nations moral, physical and intelectual attributes. His thoughts were typical for the German sentiment which grew from the nationalism and social-darwinism of the 1870s and reached its climacs with Adolf Hitler and the Nazis.

Well, that´s my 2 cents.

 

Re: Cause of war

don't you mean øre

 

It would only catch a different and rather weird meaning if I should swap the 2 cents with "2 ører".

 

CAUSE OF WAR

Simple answer- The German forces did not consider themselves beaten on the battlefield but betrayed on the home front so wanted to finish the job they started in 1870 & 1914. Read their literature - they said it and MEANT it when they considered themselves the superior race and were going to prove it one way or another!

 

I can also recommend Richard Evans The Coming of the Third Reich - it has one of the most fair accounts of how the Third Reich could come to exist, which I have read, and I'm sure that his second volume is his triology will be equally good.