Split Thread The causes and legality of the declaration of WWII

[Pacal]

We didn't have to be at war with any of them. Hitler admired the US. If we had just kept out of his way there would have been no problem (for us. Too bad about Great Britain etc.). The same could have applied to Britain too (except they thought war was inevitable).

Another huge mistake on both sides, but mostly the US for not taking Japan seriously. And what were we doing in Asia anyway?

Japan knew they had lost the war as soon as they attacked Pearl Harbor. They had a tiger by the tail. If we had come to an agreement afterwards there is a chance they could have gotten away with it. But of course there was no way we would let them. When someone punches you in the nose you don't shake hands and say let's be friends (even if that is the best response).

As you say we were in two de facto wars anyway, and after Pearl Harbor there was no way we could avoid making it official - because we wanted it. We could deal with Russia later. Communism boo hiss yes, but not Russia as such. It was the political ideology we were afraid of, which we didn't have to worry about in wartime.

A peace settlement is not necessarily capitulation. In this case it would be giving them a chance to get out alive, since there was no way we could lose in an all-out war - and they knew it.

Still nuts of course, but if the only metric is numbers (deaths, territory, surviving enemies etc.) you could argue the US might have been better off staying out of WWII. That's why I say it was a choice. But like all choices, in the end there isn't one. We make the 'choices' that we must according to our nature. On 7th December 1941 our choices suddenly focused on what was almost certain to happen anyway eventually, even though at any time we could have chosen differently.

A few modifications of your post. First. It is true that many in the Japanese government and military thought war with the US was really, really stupid and in fact suicidal. However many in the Japanese government and military thought the war was winnable, because they thought the US was a "soft" country that would not be willing to make the effort to crush Japan. (Lacking Japan's martial spirit.) So they thought the war could be won because Us would not face up to a costly expensive war. And thus Japan could acquire its Empire in Asia.

America did have interests in Asia by this time like the Philippines which much of the military in Japan wanted. Japan was also considered an ally of Nazi Germany and Hitler had since April 1941 encouraging Japan to attack the USA. (Promising to declare war on the USA, if they did, even if they did not attack Russia.) Any strengthening of Japan was perceived has strengthening Nazi Germany. Many in the Japanese government and military had long conceived of plans to take over much of the colonial European Empires in the far east. Hence Japanese moves in French Indo-China which were a prelude to that.

The Japanese military which by this time controlled Japan was divided into many factions some of which had a truly delusionary view of war with America, (Mainly the Army.) Many, (Mainly the Navy.), thought war with the USA was stupid. In the faction fighting they lost.

 

[Belz...]

No, this is not true. I think it is very unfortunate that the Jews, who were already suffering so much (and very unfairly) under Hitler in Nazi Germany, suffered even more after the declaration of war by UK and France, in September 1939, apparently brought the Holocaust, as Hitler had warned in January 1939:
https://www.criticalpast.com/video/...Jews_gives-speech-at-Reichstag_people-applaud
(and, by the way, thank you to Saggy for his post).

Are you seriously suggesting that the Nazis would not implement their stated plans to eliminate the Jews from Europe had the allies not resisted their wars of aggression?

If you think this is what the speech meant, you aren't paying attention.

 

[Belz...]

If the UK and France had not recklessly declared war to Germany in September 1939, there would have been no war (between these countries), and therefore no peace terms would have been necessary. In the case of Japan, Roosevelt launched a very serious and devastating economic war by imposing an oil embargo, the war could have been avoided by using a more prudent and moderate approach (for example, a reasonable export quota, as SpitfireIX suggested himself).

Why are you so determined to blame the war on the democratic, civilised countries and ignore the wrongdoings of the brutal, genocidal dictatorships?

 

[HansMustermann]

Just for historical records sake, the einsatzgruppen (SS teams tasked with killing jews, intellectuals, etc) followed the army into Poland since day 1. They did not wait to see first if the UK declares war or not, which was a couple of days later.

Similarly, when going into Russia, Himmler's orders from day 1 were to execute any Jews in captured territory. He didn't wait for the USA to enter the war. The "need" to execute communist officials (commissars), which then resulted in the Commissar Order was argued by Hitler on 30 March, long before even attacking Russia, much less seeing if the USA enters the war or not.

In fact, the only thing that actually prompted the Wannsee Conference and the "final solution" had nothing to do with who entered the war, but just the realization that shooting the Jews by Heydrich's Sonderkommando units was too slow. By 1942, they had "only" managed to execute some 15% of the Soviet jews in the occupied territories. THAT was what prompted the NSDAP leadership to start thinking about how they can do it in a more streamlined, industrial way.

But anyway, can we drop the flimsy pretense that oh noes, Michel isn't REALLY against the Jews, when he's quoting Hitler speeches in which he blames the Jews on the war?

 

[Belz...]

No, I don't think this is true, the Rosenstrasse events took place in 1943:

(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosenstrasse_protest#Chronology )

It seems to me the UK and France could have used British naval superiority to send (soon enough) a ship filled with modern tanks and warplanes to the Baltic sea ports that Poland was still controlling. This probably would not have changed the outcome of the war (particularly after the Soviet invasion), but it would have been a show a support and solidarity, and shown that the UK and France keep their promises.

Why are you advocating for useless policies?

When facing an aggressive war, war is the only solution.

However, I also think it is not always in the best interest of victims of an invasion to choose armed resistance.

When faced with an enemy hell-bent on exterminating part of your population, no other option exists.

 

[Belz...]

Rincewind, you seem to assume here that wars are always caused by Germany and that, once Germany had been completely defeated, the world would finally be at peace.

What a fantastically dishonest response.

 

[Crossbow]

Do you think that those who bombed Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Tokyo, Berlin, Dresden, Munich and Hamburg ever faced convictions for genocide (or mass murder)?

If the Germans and/or Japanese did not want to get bombed during World War II, then the Germans and/or Japanese should have not started World War II.

 

[erwinl]

Why are you so determined to blame the war on the democratic, civilised countries and ignore the wrongdoings of the brutal, genocidal dictatorships?

I've heard of this argument before, that it is the responsibility of the defender if an attack ends up in a fight and that all the resulting destruction is thus on the defenders head.

But, I've never seen this ******** reason this much in action as portrayed by the OP.

By the way. If we follow this 'logic', then Belgium should still be a part of the Netherlands.

 

[HansMustermann]

I'm not convinced it's even that. IF aggression is excused, defense is not, then just characterize the UK and France as being aggressive -- which in fact pretty much is Michel's argument about them -- and they're excused too. Then Germany should have just folded and peacefully demonstrated.

But that's not the argument made, is it? It's only when it's Adolf that apparently everyone ELSE is to blame for pretty much anything he's ever done.

 

[Crossbow]

Another important point that 'Michel H' fails to notice is that if the Germans and/or the Japanese had the ability to bomb England, Russia and the USA in the same way that they were bombed by the British and the Americans, then the Germans and/ or Japanese would have gladly done so.

 

[Arcade22]

Yes, communists bad, CPUSA boo, appeasement boo, etc, but what exactly would be the difference if the USA didn't join the alliance?

Sorry, I haven't argued about that.

 

[CORed]

No all wars are not caused by Germany. It's only all world wars. They're two for two so far.

 

[Roger Ramjets]

No all wars are not caused by Germany. It's only all world wars. They're two for two so far.

That's a very simplistic way of looking at it.

Causes of World War I

The immediate causes lay in decisions made by statesmen and generals during the July Crisis of 1914. This crisis was triggered by the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria by the Bosnian Serb nationalist Gavrilo Princip who had been supported by a nationalist organization in Serbia.[4] The crisis escalated as the conflict between Austria-Hungary and Serbia was joined by their allies Russia, Germany, France, and ultimately Belgium and Great Britain. Other factors that came into play during the diplomatic crisis leading up to the war included misperceptions of intent (e.g., the German belief that Britain would remain neutral), fatalism that war was inevitable, and the speed of the crisis

If we are going to attribute the immediate cause of WWI to any one group it would have to be Bosnian Serb nationalists. Given the circumstances, what happened after that was virtually inevitable - including WWII.

Of course if any of the countries involved had decided differently then the course of history might have changed dramatically. But they didn't. However much you might want to pin the blame on your favorite bogeyman, the fact is they all contributed. It was a powder keg, and just needed someone to light the fuse.

Go forward a few years to the end of WWI and the Depression, and once again many people (correctly) concluded that the next war was also inevitable.

Had it not been for WWI and the way Germany was treated afterwards, a little-known artist by the name of Adolf Hitler would not have made it his life's ambition to make those responsible pay for it.

Hitler described the war as "the greatest of all experiences", and was praised by his commanding officers for his bravery. His wartime experience reinforced his German patriotism and he was shocked by Germany's capitulation in November 1918. His bitterness over the collapse of the war effort began to shape his ideology. Like other German nationalists, he believed the Dolchstoßlegende (stab-in-the-back myth), which claimed that the German army, "undefeated in the field", had been "stabbed in the back" on the home front by civilian leaders, Jews, Marxists, and those who signed the armistice that ended the fighting—later dubbed the "November criminals"

Without WWI there would be no Hitler in power and no WWII. Without the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand there would be no WWI. So who really started WWI and WWII? The Serbs! (if that is who you want to blame). We can talk about 'the cause', but in reality it was a myriad of interconnected causes and effects, stretching back through history and prehistory to the first humans and even before. To single out one country at a particular time and say 'they caused it!' is to fall into the same trap as Hitler.

 

[HansMustermann]

Another important point that 'Michel H' fails to notice is that if the Germans and/or the Japanese had the ability to bomb England, Russia and the USA in the same way that they were bombed by the British and the Americans, then the Germans and/ or Japanese would have gladly done so.

Indeed, as evidence by their actually having plans to do so, and in Japan's case the actual attack with balloon bombs. Now it didn't actually DO anything noteworthy, or indeed even get noticed by most people, but the intent to bomb the USA was clearly there.

 

[Hans]

Another important point that 'Michel H' fails to notice is that if the Germans and/or the Japanese had the ability to bomb England, Russia and the USA in the same way that they were bombed by the British and the Americans, then the Germans and/ or Japanese would have gladly done so.

The Japanese DID bomb Chinese cities. It was those attacks that caused the creation of the AVG (well one of the reasons).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Chongqing

 

[Hans]

That's a very simplistic way of looking at it.

Causes of World War I

If we are going to attribute the immediate cause of WWI to any one group it would have to be Bosnian Serb nationalists. Given the circumstances, what happened after that was virtually inevitable - including WWII.

Of course if any of the countries involved had decided differently then the course of history might have changed dramatically. But they didn't. However much you might want to pin the blame on your favorite bogeyman, the fact is they all contributed. It was a powder keg, and just needed someone to light the fuse.

Go forward a few years to the end of WWI and the Depression, and once again many people (correctly) concluded that the next war was also inevitable.

Had it not been for WWI and the way Germany was treated afterwards, a little-known artist by the name of Adolf Hitler would not have made it his life's ambition to make those responsible pay for it.


Without WWI there would be no Hitler in power and no WWII. Without the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand there would be no WWI. So who really started WWI and WWII? The Serbs! (if that is who you want to blame). We can talk about 'the cause', but in reality it was a myriad of interconnected causes and effects, stretching back through history and prehistory to the first humans and even before. To single out one country at a particular time and say 'they caused it!' is to fall into the same trap as Hitler.

The German's also had an offensively trained first class army based on the Prussian system which they had used to defeat France in 1871, the Austrians in 1866 and the Danes too.

Having read this thread I never cease to be amazed that Hitler apologists are so insistence, insincere and historically ignorant

 

[HansMustermann]

The reason Germany got blamed for starting WW1 had nothing to do with who shot the Archduke, so I'm not sure WTH detour that is. It had to do with the fact that it was the one who declared the war in the west.

Germany's whole war plan had to do with how to defeat France. Russia was a kind of a "we'll deal with it after we defeat France" plan. But it's generous to call it even that, because it really didn't actually HAVE a plan for dealing with Russia. It was more of a "we'll improvise something when we get to that stage" kind of "plan."

So what happened was that Germany got called in by Austria to deal with Russia, started mobilizing against France, and then when France seemed in no hurry to declare war in support of Russia, Germany waited for a whole two days and then went and declared war on France itself anyway. And for that matter on Belgium, which brought the UK into the war.

THAT is why Germany got blamed for WW1.

Now one could argue that it was just a matter of time until France got into the act. Maybe it's even true. But nevertheless Germany WAS the one who declared the war there.

And honestly, while the notion that OMG Germany was unjustly given the blame just because the Entente powers wanted to humiliate it, instead of laying the blame on the Serbs... I can see how Nazi propaganda would love it, back in the 20's and 30's. But it's getting kinda tiresome to hear it repeated by uninformed people 100 years later.

 

[Roger Ramjets]

The reason Germany got blamed for starting WW1 had nothing to do with who shot the Archduke, so I'm not sure WTH detour that is. It had to do with the fact that it was the one who declared the war in the west.

Germany's whole war plan had to do with how to defeat France. Russia was a kind of a "we'll deal with it after we defeat France" plan. But it's generous to call it even that, because it really didn't actually HAVE a plan for dealing with Russia. It was more of a "we'll improvise something when we get to that stage" kind of "plan."

So what happened was that Germany got called in by Austria to deal with Russia, started mobilizing against France, and then when France seemed in no hurry to declare war in support of Russia, Germany waited for a whole two days and then went and declared war on France itself anyway. And for that matter on Belgium, which brought the UK into the war.

THAT is why Germany got blamed for WW1.

Now one could argue that it was just a matter of time until France got into the act. Maybe it's even true. But nevertheless Germany WAS the one who declared the war there.

And honestly, while the notion that OMG Germany was unjustly given the blame just because the Entente powers wanted to humiliate it, instead of laying the blame on the Serbs... I can see how Nazi propaganda would love it, back in the 20's and 30's. But it's getting kinda tiresome to hear it repeated by uninformed people 100 years later.

Yes, it's getting kinda tiresome that people who think of themselves as historians always need some group (or even a whole country) to blame. I can think of a few things to blame the French for too, and the English etc. But I won't. It's been a long hard road to World peace and we still aren't quite there yet. I would rather try to understand the reasons for what people did back then than blame them for it.

 

[catsmate]

Do you think that those who bombed Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Tokyo, Berlin, Dresden, Munich and Hamburg ever faced convictions for genocide (or mass murder)?

No. Why should they? Now Leopold, there was someone who should have been executed for slavery and mass murder.

 

[Michel H]

Do you think that those who bombed Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Tokyo, Berlin, Dresden, Munich and Hamburg ever faced convictions for genocide (or mass murder)?

No. Why should they?

I don't think these mass murders perpetrated by the U.K. and U.S. had any real justification, neither from the point of view of their dubious war aim ("total victory" or "unconditional surrender"), nor from the point of view of the rather horrible method used (mass murder of innocent civilians living under the rule of authoritarian regimes).

A legitimate political goal in a war would for example to expel an invader/occupier and to restore local democracy, but this is different from demanding unconditional surrender. It seems to me that, in order that violent military action be warranted, two conditions must be met: (1) having a reasonable political goal (e.g. restoring local democracy) and (2) having exhausted all peaceful means to reach a peaceful settlement (after having worked very hard on this).

But neither of these conditions were met when the Allies bombed Germany (and even France and Belgium). They basically treated Adolf Hitler like some kind of human trash that had to be removed (much like the Islamic State nowadays), that's all. There was no attempt to have dialogue or negotiations.

An interesting book on Hitler's peace offers has been posted by Saggy in post #119: https://www.amazon.com/What-World-Rejected-Hitlers-1933-1940-ebook/dp/B00M5K8OEM.

An excerpt from this book:

This edition benefits from four new sections which did not appear in the original publication. These are:

- The full text of Hitler’s “Appeal for Peace and Sanity” speech, made before the Reichstag on July 19, 1940, following the fall of France. In that speech, Hitler once again offered unconditional peace to Britain. This speech was printed in English and dropped by the tens of thousands from German aircraft over Britain. Although nearly half the British cabinet wanted to take up his offer, Churchill’s warmongering put an end to this final offer of peace

.

Now Leopold, there was someone who should have been executed for slavery and mass murder.

The second king of Belgium Leopold II (who, by the way, never bombed entire cities using incendiary or atomic bombs to achieve some crazy world domination aim) is no longer among us to try to defend his point of view. However, it is widely agreed that some serious human rights violations occurred in the Congo Free State.