Was WWII A Necessary and Justified War?

[Adamgerd]

I would say yes. Sure, some argue Nazi Germany started it. However if you really think about it the Allies started it by standing by their guarantee to Poland. Many people say it was a bad war and not necsarry. But either they made a stand at Poland or they would have to give up their European dominance to Germany. So I would argue it was a neccesary and Justified war

Edit: Lots of people think I am justifying the war or that I think the west started a. war. No, I am saying that world war 2 was started by the west as by aiding Poland they turned a regional war into a world war, thereby creating WW2

 

[krieger11b]

You can't be blamed as starting a war when you honor a defensive pact.

 

[keynes2.0]

You can't be blamed as starting a war when you honor a defensive pact.

And yet it happens a lot.

 

[krieger11b]

And yet it happens a lot.

Your point? Sometimes it's also abandoned, or a defensive ally decides to join the enemy instead.

 

[keynes2.0]

Your point? Sometimes it's also abandoned, or a defensive ally decides to join the enemy instead.

My point is that there are a lot of contrarians out there.

 

[Pyoro]

"Some argue Germany started it." Yes, odd as it is, what with them driving their tanks and flying their airplanes over the Polish border and starting to shoot stuff up. Clearly that's not starting a war, but rather preemptive pacifistic positive action. And, heck, Poland doesn't count anyway, everyone invades them.

I wouldn't worry too much about it. People are weird like that. Some even say Hitler was evil, despite him never murdering anyone personally. OK, maybe during WWI, but most likely not. He also might have murdered Geli Rauball, but let's not get bogged down in insignificant details. And except for his wife at the end, sort of, and himself, but, really, what's a man to do in such a position? Anyway, where was I ...

 

[LYNCHY]

I would say yes. Sure, some argue Nazi Germany started it. However if you really think about it the Allies started it by standing by their guarantee to Poland. r

how did the Allies start a war by coming to the defence of a country invaded by the nazis? Some serious far-right Kool-Aid being drunk to come up with that

 

[bz249]

Everyone knew the Poles started it by attacking a post office, a mobile phone tower or something like this. Just as the Chinese who provoked the Japanese, the Finns schemed to capture Leningrad... etc.

There was not a single war where any side carried out an outright war of aggression.

In WW2 the declaration of War by the Western Allies (especially France) was a rare example of a real act of honor. Just look what they gained in the end (loss of the Empires, diplomatic marginalization, economic hardship and an outright destroyed land)

 

[LYNCHY]

Everyone knew the Poles started it by attacking a post office, a mobile phone tower or something like this. Just as the Chinese who provoked the Japanese, the Finns schemed to capture Leningrad... etc.

Lol you what? You mean the SS who attacked the post office in Gdansk? Or the SS officers who posed as Poles and attacked the Radio tower? Or the Japanese who attacked Manchuria in Chinese uniforms?

 

[keynes2.0]

Lol you what? You mean the SS who attacked the post office in Gdansk? Or the SS officers who posed as Poles and attacked the Radio tower? Or the Japanese who attacked Manchuria in Chinese uniforms?

It's a 50-50 chance between sarcasm and repeating Nazi propaganda.

 

[Culise]

It's a 50-50 chance between sarcasm and repeating Nazi propaganda.

Aye, my bet is the former. I mean, the other two incidents alluded to are the Mainila Incident (the only one not called out by Lynchy, Soviets shell Soviet border post, blame Finland, start Winter War) and Mukden Incident (the one outlined, Japanese soldiers plant dynamite on Japanese track, blame China, invade Manchuria), after all. Batting four for four on false flags is a bit of a stretch for coincidence.

 

[bz249]

Lol you what? You mean the SS who attacked the post office in Gdansk? Or the SS officers who posed as Poles and attacked the Radio tower? Or the Japanese who attacked Manchuria in Chinese uniforms?

Ok... for the invasion of Poland the Nazis were kinda lazy, before the Munich Conference they built up a believable case about the tensions in the Sudetenland. But they were running out of money, so there was no time to provoke enough real looking border skirmishes with Poland*. Therefore they went with this particularly lame false flag.

*put enough pressure and those things gonna happen, unless the other side is especially cautious

 

[LYNCHY]

Aye, my bet is the former. I mean, the other two incidents alluded to are the Mainila Incident (the only one not called out by Lynchy, Soviets shell Soviet border post, blame Finland, start Winter War) and Mukden Incident (the one outlined, Japanese soldiers plant dynamite on Japanese track, blame China, invade Manchuria), after all. Batting four for four on false flags is a bit of a stretch for coincidence.

Ok didn't know that was what he meant by finns trying to invade Leningrad

It's a 50-50 chance between sarcasm and repeating Nazi propaganda.

judging by his need to ask the question in the first place i'd guess he might just be a fan of brown shirts and blonde hair

 

[bz249]

Ok didn't know that was what he meant by finns trying to invade Leningrad
judging by his need to ask the question in the first place i'd guess he might just be a fan of brown shirts and blonde hair

I thought it was clear enough from the last sentence... the Allied cause was just, because they gained nothing from declaring the war. It was as close as being selfless as it is possible in international politics.

 

[Finnish Dragon]

I thought it was clear enough from the last sentence... the Allied cause was just, because they gained nothing from declaring the war. It was as close as being selfless as it is possible in international politics.

I agree. Ultimately Hitler in foreign policy was a gambler who took one risk too much. He thought that the western powers were more decadent and complacent than they really were. He thought that all of his earlier gambles have worked so he could take just one more risk without consequences.

 

[DoomBunny]

I would say yes. Sure, some argue Nazi Germany started it. However if you really think about it the Allies started it by standing by their guarantee to Poland. Many people say it was a bad war and not necsarry. But either they made a stand at Poland or they would have to give up their European dominance to Germany. So I would argue it was a neccesary and Justified war

Is this a serious attempt to argue that Germany was in the right in 1939?

 

[bz249]

I agree. Ultimately Hitler in foreign policy was a gambler who took one risk too much. He thought that the western powers were more decadent and complacent than they really were. He thought that all of his earlier gambles have worked so he could take just one more risk without consequences.

And as a gambling addict he always increased the stakes. In 1935 it was just restoring full sovereignity on their own soil (who can with a right mind oppose that?) in March 1938 it was the unification of two German speaking lands with a popular support lookalike (it is forbidden, but if that is the will of the people what shall we do?) in September 1938 there was at least some semblance of genuine oppressed minority case (if that solves the strifes of Eastern Europe then why not). The annexation of the rump Czech state was only tolerated because the Western Allies cannot do anything in that exact moment. Then came Poland which finally offered a chance for an intervention.

Had Poland go through without opposition then another one would have come, the rules of gambling just not allow to quit (the case study is Napoleon... he got the peace which was more than what France could have hoped for, but peace is just plain boring).

 

[Ming]

So. . . .. what if the Allies hadn't sacrificed their blood, treasure and colonial empires to stop Hitler?

What if they decided that war must be avoided and not defended Poland in 1939?

Betraying Poland has an effect diplomatically, but most of central Europe had given up hope of Allied intervention after Munich anyway. They would accommodate Germany in 1940 but perhaps not as closely as they did with an occupied France.

What would Hitler and Stalin do after carving up Poland?

Even if Hitler demands his showdown with the West and later declares war on his own, (an act entirely within his character) I don't see the outcome being as spectacular a success for Germany as the historical 1940 campaign.

If a grinding stalemate in Northern France and the Low countries results, maybe Hitler is overthrown by his generals, but even if not and a long war of attrition and blockade sets in. . . which timeline would be darkest? This or the historical?


Italy may not get involved. Germany maybe never has the opportunity to open the Eastern Front. Japan never occupies Indo china. The US may never enter the war. The Holocaust may be avoided.

 

[Kovax]

There's a distinction to be made between "Necessary" and "Justified". Allied entry to the war was certainly "justified", with a defensive pact to be honored when Germany invaded Poland, despite Hitler's prior assurances that Czechoslovakia was the extent of his territorial ambitions. Whether or not the military involvement was "necessary" at that point (rather than sooner in defense of the Czechs, or later when - not "if" - Hitler made other demands) depends on so many other factors that it's close to impossible to say, even with over 75 years of study and speculation since it started. It certainly "appeared" to be necessary to a lot of people at the time.

The actual performance of the Allies was rather abysmal at the start of the war, and Germany's early successes resulted in a lot of long-term problems and bad solutions (by both sides) which have modern consequences. Had Germany been soundly thrashed in late '39 or '40, or at least halted and ground down without overrunning half a dozen other countries, things might have been far less painful for a lot of people. As Ming points out in the previous post, there were plenty of other possibilities for things to go far better than they ended up. There were several things which could have gone a lot worse, such as the indiscriminate use of poisons and toxic gasses against civilian populations.

 

[Adamgerd]

"Some argue Germany started it." Yes, odd as it is, what with them driving their tanks and flying their airplanes over the Polish border and starting to shoot stuff up. Clearly that's not starting a war, but rather preemptive pacifistic positive action. And, heck, Poland doesn't count anyway, everyone invades them.

I wouldn't worry too much about it. People are weird like that. Some even say Hitler was evil, despite him never murdering anyone personally. OK, maybe during WWI, but most likely not. He also might have murdered Geli Rauball, but let's not get bogged down in insignificant details. And except for his wife at the end, sort of, and himself, but, really, what's a man to do in such a position? Anyway, where was I ...

No, Germany did start war, I never said they didn't, but for a WW to start, you need more GP's. The west helped Poland and didn't actually betray Poland and so they made it turn into a WW2 from a German-polish war. If they didn't help it, it wouldn't have been known as WW2, but like the German occupation of Czechoslovakia. So, I never said they started the war, I said they started the world war part of war