Was WWII A Necessary and Justified War?

[Adamgerd]

I would say the war was caused by how harsh the treaty of Versailles was. Germany lost everything and more. Was it just for Germany to retaliate in such a way, I think not.

I disagree. I think it was because the treaty was too harsh for them to not be angry, yet too lenient for them to not still be strong. Had it been harsher, like the French president wanted, then they would've been tooo weak to challenge the treaty at all. Had it been more lenient, then stye wouldn't be angry in the first place.

 

[Adamgerd]

Let me explain. Germany invaded Poland under full knowledge that it was in a defensive alliance with two other world powers.

You are suggesting that as Germany believed that the UK and France would not honour this agreement, then Germany can be absolved of guilt for starting a world wide conflict, resulting in the deaths of tens of millions of people.

And you wish to be taken seriously?

No, I am saying that the west should be absolved of guilt for honoring the agreement, contrary to what some stupid people think in comments on youtube

 

[epicmemory]

Adamgerd,

Your argument is as follows:

1. Germany declares war on Poland;
2. The German war with Poland is a regional affair between Germany and Poland;
3. The Allies, upon activating their alliances and guarantees with Poland, declare war on Germany;
4. Therefore, the Allies are responsible for declaring a (justified) war against Germany.

What we have, in your argument, is the idea of escalation, or that the Allies were the ones responsible (justifiably so, by your own words) for turning a regional war between Germany and Poland into a world war. Important to this is the idea of the proximate cause, or the necessary condition for war. What you're missing is the critical point that the proximate cause for WW2 was German aggression against Poland, and that the subsequent Allied declarations of war are not, in any way, at fault for the escalation of the conflict for the simple reason that Germany, by virtue of its invasion of Poland, had already fulfilled the proximate cause of conflict.

Your argument breaks down immediately with point (1) and (2).

Your very first premise (1) is that Germany declares war on Poland, and only Poland. This almost immediately loses any validity as a point of contention. Imagine I go up to a police officer. I have a gun in my hand. I point the gun at the police officer. I then pull the trigger and put a bullet in the officer's stomach. He's not dead, yet (in fact, he very well may survive!), but the other police around me decide to shoot me anyways, saying I killed their comrade.

Under your argument, we'd be saying, "Well, this was initially only a little disagreement between two people that got out of hand, and it was the decision of the other police officers to turn this into something bigger". Therefore, the police officers are the ones that escalated the situation, and, even though the escalation was completely and utterly justified, the final blame for the escalation must be assigned to them.

You see, I shot the police officer knowing full well the consequences of my actions. Germany declared war on Poland knowing, with absolute certainty, that it would mean a war with the UK and France. Just like shooting the police officer will necessitate a justified reaction, Germany declaring war on Poland necessitated an Allied response.

Imagine another scenario. You're driving a car in a city. You come up to a traffic light. You know you won't make the light, so you floor it. The light turns red, you decide to just run straight through. Once across, a police officer flashes his lights to stop you, and you receive a citation. In this scenario, you knowingly violated the law by running the red light. Under your argument, you'd be saying, "Well, it was the police officer's fault for ticketing me for the sole reason that he was the one who did it. My actions merely provided the justification, whereas it was the officer's ultimate decision to make the call to ticket me".

You can see how ridiculous that is. In both examples (the police shooting and the traffic stop), you (Germany) are clearly at fault and your actions are the proximate cause for the escalation of conflict.

Let's go back to (2), or the idea that the German war with Poland is a regional affair. We know this is a fundamentally unsound premise to your argument because we know, clearly, that Germany's war with Poland was not a regional affair. Let's use another example:

Say Russia, right now, declares war on...Estonia. Estonia is a member of NATO. NATO members are obligated to defend each other from an attack. Therefore, NATO would respond to the war by declaring a state of war with Russia. Under your argument, we'd be saying, "Well, Estonia vs Russia is a regional affair, and it's NATO's fault for escalating the conflict".

It's patently ridiculous. One cannot simply ignore an entire system of alliances and political guarantees in the context of a regional war. To declare war against Poland meant that Germany would be engaged in a state of war against the Allies. The proximate cause for conflict (German aggression for Poland) is responsible for the escalation of the war, not the Allied declarations on September 3rd.

 

[Adamgerd]

Adamgerd,

Your argument is as follows:

1. Germany declares war on Poland;
2. The German war with Poland is a regional affair between Germany and Poland;
3. The Allies, upon activating their alliances and guarantees with Poland, declare war on Germany;
4. Therefore, the Allies are responsible for declaring a (justified) war against Germany.

What we have, in your argument, is the idea of escalation, or that the Allies were the ones responsible (justifiably so, by your own words) for turning a regional war between Germany and Poland into a world war. Important to this is the idea of the proximate cause, or the necessary condition for war. What you're missing is the critical point that the proximate cause for WW2 was German aggression against Poland, and that the subsequent Allied declarations of war are not, in any way, at fault for the escalation of the conflict for the simple reason that Germany, by virtue of its invasion of Poland, had already fulfilled the proximate cause of conflict.

Your argument breaks down immediately with point (1) and (2).

Your very first premise (1) is that Germany declares war on Poland, and only Poland. This almost immediately loses any validity as a point of contention. Imagine I go up to a police officer. I have a gun in my hand. I point the gun at the police officer. I then pull the trigger and put a bullet in the officer's stomach. He's not dead, yet (in fact, he very well may survive!), but the other police around me decide to shoot me anyways, saying I killed their comrade.

Under your argument, we'd be saying, "Well, this was initially only a little disagreement between two people that got out of hand, and it was the decision of the other police officers to turn this into something bigger". Therefore, the police officers are the ones that escalated the situation, and, even though the escalation was completely and utterly justified, the final blame for the escalation must be assigned to them.

You see, I shot the police officer knowing full well the consequences of my actions. Germany declared war on Poland knowing, with absolute certainty, that it would mean a war with the UK and France. Just like shooting the police officer will necessitate a justified reaction, Germany declaring war on Poland necessitated an Allied response.

Imagine another scenario. You're driving a car in a city. You come up to a traffic light. You know you won't make the light, so you floor it. The light turns red, you decide to just run straight through. Once across, a police officer flashes his lights to stop you, and you receive a citation. In this scenario, you knowingly violated the law by running the red light. Under your argument, you'd be saying, "Well, it was the police officer's fault for ticketing me for the sole reason that he was the one who did it. My actions merely provided the justification, whereas it was the officer's ultimate decision to make the call to ticket me".

You can see how ridiculous that is. In both examples (the police shooting and the traffic stop), you (Germany) are clearly at fault and your actions are the proximate cause for the escalation of conflict.

Let's go back to (2), or the idea that the German war with Poland is a regional affair. We know this is a fundamentally unsound premise to your argument because we know, clearly, that Germany's war with Poland was not a regional affair. Let's use another example:

Say Russia, right now, declares war on...Estonia. Estonia is a member of NATO. NATO members are obligated to defend each other from an attack. Therefore, NATO would respond to the war by declaring a state of war with Russia. Under your argument, we'd be saying, "Well, Estonia vs Russia is a regional affair, and it's NATO's fault for escalating the conflict".

It's patently ridiculous. One cannot simply ignore an entire system of alliances and political guarantees in the context of a regional war. To declare war against Poland meant that Germany would be engaged in a state of war against the Allies. The proximate cause for conflict (German aggression for Poland) is responsible for the escalation of the war, not the Allied declarations on September 3rd.

No, I am saying the blame lies with Germany for starting the war and the allies are not to be blamed for escalating it, contrary to what some people believe, that the west should be blamed for it. Also the NATO would rely on that nato would actually defend Estonia and not let Russia invade them *cough* Czechoslovakia *cough*

 

[epicmemory]

No, I am saying the blame lies with Germany for starting the war and the allies are not to be blamed for escalating it, contrary to what some people believe, that the west should be blamed for it. Also the NATO would rely on that nato would actually defend Estonia and not let Russia invade them *cough* Czechoslovakia *cough*

Except you said this (emphasis mine)

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

"[...] they [The Allies] made it turn into a WW2 from a Germany-Polish war".

"If they didn't help it [Poland], it wouldn't have been known as WW2 [...]".

What you're saying is that the Allies are the ones that escalated the war from a regional affair between Poland and Germany to a World War. Those are your words, not mine .

In the end, it's an argument that's splitting hairs (at best), and treads dangerously close towards German apologist rhetoric at worst. So long as you agree that Germany precipitated the war and that Germany, not the Allies, was responsible for 'escalating' the war between Germany and Poland into a world war, we don't have any disagreements . Your initial posts are not very clear on the last point.

 

[Adamgerd]

Except you said this (emphasis mine)



"[...] they [The Allies] made it turn into a WW2 from a Germany-Polish war".

"If they didn't help it [Poland], it wouldn't have been known as WW2 [...]".

What you're saying is that the Allies are the ones that escalated the war from a regional affair between Poland and Germany to a World War. Those are your words, not mine .

In the end, it's an argument that's splitting hairs (at best), and treads dangerously close towards German apologist rhetoric at worst. So long as you agree that Germany precipitated the war and that Germany, not the Allies, was responsible for 'escalating' the war between Germany and Poland into a world war, we don't have any disagreements . Your initial posts are not very clear on the last point.

I agree that Germany started the war against Poland and was the aggressor. I agree that Germany should be blamed for the escalation into the world war and is responsible for it. I only say that the west escalated it, but because of German actions, Germany is responsible for it and should be blamed for it, not the West. People here are actually logical, some people on the internet actually say that the west should be blamed for WW2

 

[epicmemory]

I agree that Germany started the war against Poland and was the aggressor. I agree that Germany should be blamed for the escalation into the world war and is responsible for it. I only say that the west escalated it, but because of German actions, Germany is responsible for it and should be blamed for it, not the West. People here are actually logical, some people on the internet actually say that the west should be blamed for WW2

Ah hah! There it is again. You're saying:

"I only say that the west escalated it". As my rather long post above illustrates, the Allies did not escalate the war because Germany had already done so.

I don't know how to make this more clear...how about another example. Okay, let's try this:

You're driving a car. A fast car. A really, really fast car. You're going along the road, and then you see a big concrete barrier at the end of the road. You have miles and miles to stop, but you don't. You then knowingly, with full force and intention, hit the wall. Ouch time, multi-car pile up, lots of dead people, the works.

Your logic, that the Allies escalated the war from a regional affair between Germany and Poland (again, I know you're saying that the Allies were justified in doing so and Germany is at fault) would lead us to the conclusion that it was the wall's fault for escalating the accident into a tragic, multiple fatality accident.

That's clearly ludicrous. It's not the wall's fault! It's Germany's fault. It's not the wall's fault for escalating the accident into a massive, terrible event. The wall did not escalate anything. The wall was there, it acted as everyone knew it would, and it acted as a force of nature. Action, and reaction. Cause and effect. The Allies were the wall. The Germans ran straight into the wall, knowing full well what would happen, and they did it anyways.

The only issue with your post is your contradictory views on what escalation means. I want to chalk it up to an English translation issue, personally. The Allies, in no way, can be said to have escalated the war between Germany and Poland. Again, war with Poland meant war with the Allies. One cannot differentiate between the two. Like Estonia, like the wall, like the police officer, the only one responsible for any escalation....was Germany.

Let's try another example. Mexico uses its first 150 PP in 2018 to pull a fascist coup and declares war on California. Okay, Mexico and California are now at war. Under your argument, we'd be saying that "Well, it's really the United States that escalated the war between California and Mexico. Yes, the USA is justified and Mexico is bad for being the aggressor, but I say that the USA escalated it." Now, obviously, California is a state in the Union, and there's no question the USA would defend its sovereign territory. In the context of 1939, think of Poland as California. The Allies have made California (Poland) part of their "Union", and everyone knows that a war against California (Poland) means a war with the Allies. With that understanding, it's obvious that any question of the Allies 'escalating' anything is nothing but nonsense.

 

[Adamgerd]

Ah hah! There it is again. You're saying:

"I only say that the west escalated it". As my rather long post above illustrates, the Allies did not escalate the war because Germany had already done so.

I don't know how to make this more clear...how about another example. Okay, let's try this:

You're driving a car. A fast car. A really, really fast car. You're going along the road, and then you see a big concrete barrier at the end of the road. You have miles and miles to stop, but you don't. You then knowingly, with full force and intention, hit the wall. Ouch time, multi-car pile up, lots of dead people, the works.

Your logic, that the Allies escalated the war from a regional affair between Germany and Poland (again, I know you're saying that the Allies were justified in doing so and Germany is at fault) would lead us to the conclusion that it was the wall's fault for escalating the accident into a tragic, multiple fatality accident.

That's clearly ludicrous. It's not the wall's fault! It's Germany's fault. It's not the wall's fault for escalating the accident into a massive, terrible event. The wall did not escalate anything. The wall was there, it acted as everyone knew it would, and it acted as a force of nature. Action, and reaction. Cause and effect. The Allies were the wall. The Germans ran straight into the wall, knowing full well what would happen, and they did it anyways.

The only issue with your post is your contradictory views on what escalation means. I want to chalk it up to an English translation issue, personally. The Allies, in no way, can be said to have escalated the war between Germany and Poland. Again, war with Poland meant war with the Allies. One cannot differentiate between the two. Like Estonia, like the wall, like the police officer, the only one responsible for any escalation....was Germany.

Let's try another example. Mexico uses its first 150 PP in 2018 to pull a fascist coup and declares war on California. Okay, Mexico and California are now at war. Under your argument, we'd be saying that "Well, it's really the United States that escalated the war between California and Mexico. Yes, the USA is justified and Mexico is bad for being the aggressor, but I say that the USA escalated it." Now, obviously, California is a state in the Union, and there's no question the USA would defend its sovereign territory. In the context of 1939, think of Poland as California. The Allies have made California (Poland) part of their "Union", and everyone knows that a war against California (Poland) means a war with the Allies. With that understanding, it's obvious that any question of the Allies 'escalating' anything is nothing but nonsense.

I see. However, there's still a minor flaw. Germany didn't know full well, because why should they believe the West will help Poland when it didn't help Czechoslovakia, which if anything was more tied to France, than Poland was. It's as if the US allows Mexico to take California and does nothing (the alliance), then Mexico doesn't expect it will help Portugal as California is part of the Union and then the US helps Portugal

 

[Sonmi]

I would say the war was caused by how harsh the treaty of Versailles was. Germany lost everything and more. Was it just for Germany to retaliate in such a way, I think not.

Germany was left relatively untouched by Versailles, especially compared to the way that A-H and the Ottoman Empire were completely dismantled.

Not only were the reparations demanded of Germany rather meager, but they barely paid anything back, AND their infrastructure and industry was left relatively intact by the fighting, unlike that of France and Belgium. The widespread poverty that crippled Germany was due to the economic mismanagement of the Weimar Republic and the fact the whole Western world entered a period of depression following WW1.

The leading cause to Germans thinking that Versailles was "too harsh" was the same thing that led to people believing the absurd "Stab in the back" hypothesis. Germans refused to believe they had lost the war due to capitulations happening before fighting occurred on German land, and thus they thought the peace terms they'd get would be those of a "White Peace", and that any treaty that would ask anything of Germany or put any blame on them for the War would be "too harsh".

Versailles left an angered Germany with the industrial capacity to outmatch the other European powers, it was a terribly misguided attempt at pacifying Europe, and should have gone further. They should have honestly undone Bismarck's legacy and created several nations out of the German empire.

 

[olm]

I don't see how even harsher peace treaty would work any better, considering that Allies were unwilling to enforce Versailles as it was then Germany started openly violating it in 1935.

 

[Sonmi]

I don't see how even harsher peace treaty would work any better, considering that Allies were unwilling to enforce Versailles as it was then Germany started openly violating it in 1935.

It's easier to enforce the conditions of a peace treaty on smaller individual nations once they transgress than on the economic superpower of the continent, quite simply.

 

[Easy-Kill]

I don't see how even harsher peace treaty would work any better, considering that Allies were unwilling to enforce Versailles as it was then Germany started openly violating it in 1935.

The world changes a lot in 15+ years. Just think of the changes we have seen since the 9/11 attacks.

 

[olm]

It's easier to enforce the conditions of a peace treaty on smaller individual nations once they transgress than on the economic superpower of the continent, quite simply.

It would have been quite easy for French-Polish forces to enforce conditions against Reichswehr in 1935, didn't happen. Where would come public will to enforce even harsher treaty most blatantly violating principle of self-determination?

The world changes a lot in 15+ years. Just think of the changes we have seen since the 9/11 attacks.

Yea, but I don't see how this contradicts my argument in any way?

 

[Sonmi]

It would have been quite easy for French-Polish forces to enforce conditions against Reichswehr in 1935, didn't happen. Where would come public will to enforce even harsher treaty most blatantly violating principle of self-determination?

Not as easy as enforcing conditions against, hypothetically, the Rhinish Confederacy by itself.

Considering Sykes-Picot, and what Germany went on to do to the regions it annexed, it's rather rich to talk about self-determination. You'd simply be moving self-determination to a regional level rather than a ridiculous pangerman one.

Also, "even harsher"? Versailles wasn't harsh at all in the first place, unless you want to argue that Germany shouldn't have been punished at all for the Great War.

 

[olm]

Well, it doesn't really matter do we call it here "harsh" or "lenient". Fact is that many perceived it as harsh. Fact is that then push came to shove in 1935 very few were willing to enforce it, even though Germany was still a military pygmy at that time. I don't see how making terms more severe helps here in any way, if anything I would expect dismantling of the treaty to start even earlier.

 

[RichStrat]

The conflict was started by France, Russia and Serbia in June 1914. The murders of the Arch Duke and his wife were an act of war under written by France and Russia. The idea that France Russia and the United Kingdom were the virtuous defenders of the rights of small nations is a joke. However what ever the rights and wrongs which began the conflict, it was right for Britain and France to go to war when Hitler occupied Czechoslovakia in March 1939. Hitler broke his agreement with Britain and France. The peace demands should have been the elimination of Hitler or handing him over to face trial, the withdrawal from Czechoslovakia, but not the Sudetenland. What was not right was the calls for unconditional surrender from Germany. It should never be forgotten that in 1939, Stalin and the Bolsheviks had committed genocide, Hitler and the Nazis had not.

 

[pithorr]

OK, so eventually we've got the final development of any thread in Paradox History Forum. One of the two possible: responsibility for starting WW1 and why it was not Germany

 

[bz249]

OK, so eventually we've got the final development of any thread in Paradox History Forum. One of the two possible: responsibility for starting WW1 and why it was not Germany

Even though it is quite clear who has started WW1. It was Saddam Hussein, but the guy was hanged for it, so justice is done.

 

[olm]

I don't even see how "who started WW I" was actually relevant to preceding discussion...

 

[pithorr]

I don't even see how "who started WW I" was actually relevant to preceding discussion...

It usually isn't in anyone, but eventually becomes a such