PDA

View Full Version : Could world war 2 have been avoided?



Rabin105
11-08-2010, 08:42 AM
Could World War 2 have been prevented?
By
Danny Krohn




While Germany can be thought of as villian in all honesty if they had won World war I Not only would histoy have painted them in a better light but World War 2 would of been completly avoided. Most historians would argue that had Germany won World War I the world would have been a far better place; no Russian Revolution, no World War II, no Holocaust, no Cold War and potentially no Vietnam or Korean War. In fact, had Germany won World War I the entire 20th century would have been drastically altered. Unfortunatley, Germany didn’t win World War I and while we know World War II was caused by Hitler and the Nazis and was always Hitler's goal, the real question is could this war have been avoided entirely?
There is a lot of debate in academia that suggests that yes World War II could have been avoided and that history was not set in stone. Both sides are fiercely opinionated in regards to how history played out. There are five main reasons that historians feel World War II could have been avoided. The first reason is a stronger reaction by the League of Nations to Germany Italy and Japan's growing power. The second reason is, historians feel the Nazis could have easily dissolved before 1933 thus halting World War II in it's tracks. The third is Britain and France being stronger in their resolve in their initial opposition to Germany, as well as using diplomatic means to try and stop the partnership between them and Italy. Fourth would be a less strict and harsh treatment against Germany after World War I and a utlize of Woodrow Wilson's 14 points over what was used in the Versailles Treaty. The Final reason is if world leaders seeing the Economic Crisis worked together rather than independently to rebuild their economies. While all of the reasons listed combined would have definitly changed German and indeed European history in all honesty any one of these reasons is enough to have changed European history entirely and stopped the road to war laid out by Hitler and the Nazis in 1933.
Had the League of Nations been stronger in it's resolve in the months and years leading up to World War II the entire war might have been avoided. A strong misconception by 'pop historians' is that the League of Nations was always a dismal failure. Though in all honesty in the 20's and 30's the League actually was respected and did some tremendous good in Europe and through out the world. It's best success came out of solving land disputes like Albania and Upper Silesia. It is possibly without the League of Nations, World War II might have started earlier due to the land disputes after World War 1 in Europe. The League of Nations certainly had their share of flaws. For example, the League of Nations had no real military might and no standing army. In fact countries could join and leave without any shread of punnishment, Case in Point Germany left the league in 1933 and nothing happened. The League of Nations were never able to show any sort of power or military might. Some clear examples of this are the Chaco War, the Italians' treatment of Red Cross employees during the Italian invasion of Abyssinia, and the Second Sino-Japanese War. In all of these cases the League of Nations was basically powerless to enforce anything and could not in any way, shape, or form handle the struggles diplomatically. Benito Mussolini even compared the League of Nations to "the sound of buzzing flies," meaning that while they claimed to have power and influence in reality it was a very minisucle threat to Italy and indeed to any nation. The League could also be heavidly influenced by its member's own self intrest case in point Brittain and France were terrified about the possibility of Adolph Hitler's Germany and Benito Mussolini's Italy joining forces. Which is ironic as even with Britain and France backing off against the leagues claims of harsh treatemnt of red cross workers and the leagues opposition to the Italian invasion of Abyssinia Benito Mussolini and Hitler would wind up working together anyways.* During the Second Sino-Japanese War the League of Nations wanted to actually help out the Chinese. In fact, many nations were impressed with the Chinese defence of Shanghai but the fact that they couldn't actually help the Chinese in the war showed the world just how little power The League of nations had both diplomatically and militarily in the late 30's. In fact the Secon Sino-Japanese War was the final nail in the coffin of the League of Nations.
The Nazis were not the powerhouse group that swept up all of Germany as some historians view them as. The truth is to this day Germany hates it's World War II past and in modern day Germany has only one memorial for World War II and it's for the men who died in Operation Valkyrie which was the plot to kill Hitler. There were actually several plots to kill hitler from 1938-1944. While none were succesfull it was clear that there was a resitence against hitler Even before the final solution was put into place. The Nazis were really just a ragtag group that only got 37 % of the vote, and that was in their prime, and did not have the strongest backing. They could have dissolved at any point. Many people at the time never assumed Hitler would even win considering he never held a public office and only became a German citizen within only a few years of his first run for power. Minister Kurt von Schleicher, the then current chancellor of Germany, once said "I'll Make Hitler a post office worker so that way he lick my ass while he is licking my stamps onto envelopes." In fact many people in Hitler's own cabinet believed that once Hitler took power they could control Hitler in a sort of "puppet presidency" and push their beliefs and agenda forward. This is not the case as Hitler was uncontrolable and quite insane as in his own mind he thought he was dieing (though he was in perfect health) and there forth he felt his ideas had to be realized.
The truth is not only was Hitler thought of as a joke outside his part but with in his own party too. It's important to note that the nazis had not only not a lot of backing from the people they also the Nazi's never had full power over the Reichstag. This was the German parliament; they always had to attend to the Democratic Socialist movement. They Controlled about a third of the Reichstag and again that was it. It honestly wasn't until the Reichstag fire that Hitler was able to create marshal law. Another Factor the helped solidify Hitler's Rise to power was the death of President Paul von Hindenburg who died on 2 August 1934. Instead of holding new elections Hitler's cabinat passed a law declaring all presidential power be moved to him Hitler then declared him self "Führer und Oberster Befehlshaber der Wehrmacht" which in english means Leader and Supreme Commander of the Defence Force and because of this was able to kill those who went against him. With this act Hitler was able to start making his grand design a terrifying reality.
Had Britain and France been stronger in their resolve against Germany in the 1930's they could have easily prevented World War II. As noted earlier Brittain and France were terrified of Mussoline's Italy and Hitler's Germany working together. This could have been easily avoided all together if utlizing the League of Nations Britain and France worked together to show diplomatic force against Italy during the Italian invasion of Abyssinia. It is even possible that Britain and France could have not allowed German to invade Poland in 1939, which was the offical start of World War II, by using the diplomatic channels provided by the League of Nations. It seems like the simplest solution to the growing threat of war yet Britain and France didn't see it that way. Hitler's Race and Space plan and uniting of Germans were well known of by the British and French. In fact they didn't act until after Germany had invaded Poland. Even after Germany invaded Poland, it took them 4 months before they actually get involved.
There is no doubt that although Germany did cause World War 1, the Versailles treaty was extremely unfair to the Germans. In a way the reason why many consider World War 2 unavoidable is, because of the way Germany was left with all the laws that shunted their growth as a country. It is little wonder why there was so much anger and resentment with German people. They honestly didn’t care who they fought as long as they beat up someone in response to their growing resentment of the world and their situation. One wonders why the countries involved did not just adopt President Woodrow Wilsons 14 points which was kinder to Germany and actually could of possibly stopped the growing tensions and feeling of anger and resment most young germans had in the 20's and 30's. Wilson created the points because he was terrified of a second world war happening due to the heavy casualities of World War I. President Wilson tried in vain to create a treaty by himself that would allow for the prevention of another World War even going as far as to create the League of Nations (though the US never officaly joined a problem that possibly caused the out break of World War II) but due to political pressures against the 14 points the other instead they went with the actual Treaty of Versailles which while it had preventive measures against a second world war the problem is clauses like mutual disarmemnet were not followed by the other countries.
Had the economic crisis that gripped the world in the late 20's and 30's been solved together rather then independently the world would have been a much different place. It was clear that America, Great Brittan, France, Germany, and many other nations had huge unemployment rates and were in a great depression. The problem was the way that governments were solving the problem. They were solving it by putting tariffs on Global products and trying to increase domestic production. The Tariffs cause the ecnomic depressions in Germany to worsen as a lot of their imports had a hard time being sold outside of Germany, this was a huge problem as due to the Versailles Treaty Germay had a huge debt to pay to France and the other countries for starting the war and the destruction the war caused, it was hard to pay off. All of this ecnomic depression made people resentfull and angry and at 33% unemployment it was easy to see why someone who promised a bright new German Future with job and money for all was able to be elected. An interesting point is it seemed Ecnomics durring Hitler's Germany were so fluid it seemed that Hitler made the econmy the way it was solely for War to become inevitable.
Its been demonstrated in this article that the Unavoidable war was indeed quite avoidable. One can easily see had events unfolded a little differently the world could easily have been a better place. If Germany had won World War 1 there might never have even been a World War II. That wasn't the only way World War II could have been avoided there were several others but the five main reasons provided show that the hands of fate and destiny could have easily blown in a different path as it would take only one of them to prevent World War II. This easily would of caused German history and indeed the World's history to look much differently. One Wonders had the winds of fate changed how Germany would be viewed in the modern text. With no Nazi and Holocost movement Germany and indeed the entire european continent would be quite different.












Sources



Read, Anthony (2004). The Devil's Disciples: Hitler's Inner Circle. W. W. Norton & Company. p. 804. ISBN 0393048004.
Baer, George W. (1976). Test Case: Italy, Ethiopia, and the League of Nations. Stanford: Hoover Institution Press.
Donnelly, Mark (1999). Britain in the Second World War. Routledge. p. xiv. ISBN 0415174252.

Frumious B
11-08-2010, 09:20 AM
I think that if the allies had gone a little easier on Germany in the Treaty of Versailles then the conditions that enabled Hitler to come to power might have never existed. The Weimar Republic would have been stronger.

True Believer
11-08-2010, 01:33 PM
I think that if the allies had gone a little easier on Germany in the Treaty of Versailles then the conditions that enabled Hitler to come to power might have never existed. The Weimar Republic would have been stronger.
Agreed. The Versailles Treaty was incredibly harsh on Germany.

ham
11-08-2010, 02:29 PM
Harsh - jeeeez wee understatment there Annie...
The 20th century wae full af tae much willy-waving - enuff aw'ready!!!

The Whale
11-08-2010, 03:00 PM
Not just harsh but the whole treaty was done poor. Its what happens when ill informed people start drawing maps by geographical locations and have no knowledge of cultrual lines or how peoples sens of Nationallity might clash. Hind sight is 20/20 but the simple answer is Yes.

pianozach
11-08-2010, 10:35 PM
. . . As far as whether WWII could have been avoided, the answer will always be "yes".

But the question you asked presupposes that we know exactly caused WWII.

As I see it, it was a succession of events, any of which, if changed, would have altered the direction of history.

If some nice girl had been very nice to young Adolf, perhaps he wouldn't have had a bug up his ass for the rest of his life.

Yep, five major events that, if altered, MIGHT have prevented WWII, at least as we know it.

True Believer
11-08-2010, 10:40 PM
. . . As far as whether WWII could have been avoided, the answer will always be "yes".

But the question you asked presupposes that we know exactly caused WWII.

As I see it, it was a succession of events, any of which, if changed, would have altered the direction of history.

If some nice girl had been very nice to young Adolf, perhaps he wouldn't have had a bug up his ass for the rest of his life.

Yep, five major events that, if altered, MIGHT have prevented WWII, at least as we know it.

How far back do you go?

Versailles Treaty causing hardship, restrictions etc on Germany.

Due to Germany's aggression in WW1.

Due to a random act of assassination in Serbia.

Due to ..... ?

You could go all way back 100s of years.

Where does it start?

Jackaranda
11-08-2010, 10:44 PM
How far back do you go?

Versailles Treaty causing hardship, restrictions etc on Germany.

Due to Germany's aggression in WW1.

Due to a random act of assassination in Serbia.

Due to ..... ?

You could go all way back 100s of years.

Where does it start?

I did a speech in school a few months ago about that assasination.

True Believer
11-08-2010, 10:48 PM
And what was your conclusion?

Jackaranda
11-08-2010, 11:17 PM
Well it certainly drew Austria into the war, which in turn drew Russia in, which in turn...

True Believer
11-08-2010, 11:24 PM
Yep, and on, and on ...

pedro skychaser
11-08-2010, 11:56 PM
http://sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc4/hs251.snc4/39906_1590617445775_1246047228_1674200_7001569_n.j pg (http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?pid=1674201&id=1246047228)


"Lookout Franz !!! Duck !!!"


+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++



www.pedro-tv.com (http://www.pedro-tv.com)

pianozach
11-09-2010, 01:14 AM
So, if you had a gun and a time machine . . . would you go back and kill Adolf?

milestownyes
11-09-2010, 01:39 AM
I can't believe some of the things I'm reading.

Rabin105
11-29-2010, 04:49 PM
I can't believe some of the things I'm reading.

may i ask what is making things so unbelievable.

also another paper i am writing form y class
The Resistance against Hitler 1938-1944
By Danny Krohn

There is little doubt that Hitler was an evil human being, but a common misconception is that all Germans loved him. Not only is this completely untrue (many of those murdered in the concentration camps despite their faith or creed were indeed Germans) but also there were several attempts against his life. Some of these Attempts were by the german resistence and some were by m
Hitler was clearly a reviled man. The resistance against Hitler lasted throughout the war. It began in 1938 with a base captain's attempt to cause Hitler to have a fatal accident. It continued with a lone sniper in Paris hoping to kill him while he toured the city. Later, was the July 20th Bomb Plot, in 1944, that the 2009 film Valkyrie was based on.
All of the assassination attempts against Hitler, despite being unsuccessful, were attempted by brave individuals who had a variety of motives. But, they all had the same goal: to stop Hitler once and for all. The reasons as to why Hitler was a marked man range from preventing a war that would decimate Germany, to trying to kill him due to the atrocities he was committing during the war. And finally, trying to end a war that Hitler was going to continue to the bitter end despite the fact that it was completely obliterating Germany and the German people.
It is perhaps these different reasons that caused so many attempts on Hitler's life to be unorganized, which evidently caused them to fail. While the most notorious attempt is the July 20th Plot of 1944, made famous in the film Valkyrie, it wasn't the only attempt. There were thirteen attempts on Hitler's life. They involved various members of the army, as well as an ordinary citizen, and utilized many different scenarios.
There were two attempts on Hitler's life in 1939 before the outbreak of the war. The first was on the Siegfried Line, where a base captain, General Kurt von Hammerstein, had tried several times to lure Hitler to his base. The idea was that Hitler would have a fatal accident while on the base. Hitler would be dead, and the military would regain control of Germany and stop the "War Machine" Hitler was starting. This was before Germany had invaded Poland, and the army had said several times they wanted to wait to better train and be better prepared. Hitler wouldn't listen, and this caused a lot of tension between the military and Hitler.
The second attempt on Hitler's life occurred in 1939. It was by Johann Georg Elser, who was just a simple carpenter, but staunchly against Nazism. His plan was simple- blow up Hitler at one of his speeches. The scene was at Beer Hall, named Bürgerbräukeller, in Munich, where Hitler was giving a speech. Johann had worked at the bar, and each night after it closed, whittled out more and more of an area in the podium where a bomb could be concealed.
The men who wanted Hitler dead in 1939 were General Kurt von Hammerstein and co-conspirator Colonel-General Ludwig Beck, as well as Johann Georg Elser. They were as different as night and day. Two were soldiers, and the other was a carpenter. Their reasons for wanting Hitler dead, though, were largely the same. They all were all anti-Nazi.
Hammerstein regarded Nazis as "that gang of criminals" and "those filthy pigs". Having no love for them or their politics, he tried desperately several times to kill Hitler. An interesting note is, Hammerstein's sons Ludwig and Kunrat both took part in the plan to kill Hitler- codenamed Valkyrie on July 20th, 1944. Not only was Hammerstein's entire family anti-Nazi, but Heinrich Brüning, who had served as German chancellor between 1930 and 1932, called Hammerstein- Equord "the only man who could remove Hitler — a man without nerves." (Wheeler)
Interestingly, Colonel-General Ludwig Beck was originally a supporter of the Nazis but became very much against it. The reason was while some of the ideals of Nazism appealed to him as a General he knew that Germany could not win a second world war and felt it would be foolish to attempt it when it became Hitlers only goal was to start and win this war General Ludwig Beck realized he needed to be elimnated otherwise Germany would be destroyed. He worked not only with Kurt Von Hammerstein, but he also worked on the July 20th Plot. Had it succeeded, he would have become Head of State in the new government.
Like Kurt Von Hammerstein, Johann Georg Elser was staunchly against the Nazis. He never voted for them and would not salute Hitler. He hated Hitler and his politics. After his attempt on Hitler's life, which failed due to Hitler leaving the Beer Hall 11 minutes earlier then expected, he was arrested and was sent to a concentration camp. He died there in 1945 at the age of 42.
In the early 40's there were several more attempts on Hitler's life. These included two attempts to assassinate him with a sniper rifle in Paris, a few more attempts with explosives, and two attacks where someone with a gun tried to walk up to and shoot Hitler at point blank range. As each year of the war went on, the threats became more and more brazen. People started to get increasingly unhappy with Hitler and his unending quest to conquer Europe.
The two attempts in Paris happened in the early years of the war, and though they were attempted by two different people, the plot was the same: Lure Hitler to Paris under the guise of a military parade, during which the assassin would hide with a sniper rifle at a spot along the parade and when Hitler passed, the sniper would take aim and fire, killing him. This plan was first attempted by Count Fritz-Dietlof von der Schulenberg on July 27th 1940 and was again attempted by Field Marshal Erwin von Witzleben on May 21st 1941. Both men once again tried to kill Hitler in 1944, being conspirators in the July 20th Valkyrie Operation. Both men also began to despise the Nazi party, even though they had initially joined, due to the lawlessness of the party's actions.
Besides the unsuccessful attempts in Paris, there were a few more attempts against Hitler's life in 1943 and 1944. The biggest attempt was by Field Marshal Guenther von Kluge with the assistance of Colonel Henning von Tresckow, Lt. Fabian von Schlabrendorff, Colonel Rudolf von Gersdorff, and Cavalry Captain Georg von Boeslager. All of these men hated the Nazis and wanted to kill Hitler and overthrow the Nazi government, setting up a military government in its place.
The three attempts at the headquaters of of Army Group Center on the eastern front included Hitler's car being attacked by a roadside ambush. This was considered too risky when Hitler arrived with his own security detail of fifty SS soldiers loyal only to him. The second attempt on the base was when Hitler had lunch in the mess hall with Colonel Henning von Tresckow. Tresckow was supposed to get up and shoot Hitler at point blank range, but this plan was also scrapped due to the heavy number of bodyguards and SS troopers Hitler brought with him. The third and final attempt against Hitler's life involved swapping a gift of brandy with a time bomb. The bomb was given to Colonel Heinz Brandt who was flying back with Hitler by Lt. Fabian von Schlabrendorff. The plane flew too high and the timing mechanism froze. Schalbrendoff flew to Berlin to replace the package with a real package of brandy after Hitler had landed safely.
The men who committed these acts, for the most part, hated Hitler and the Third Reich. It was not just about stopping a war but about stopping a true evil being. Many of the men also were a part of the July 20th Plot. Many of the men who worked closely on the July 20th Plot to kill Hitler, were conspirators who had unsuccessfully tried to kill Hitler in their own way beforehand. In their eyes, Germany was being obliterated right before them in a war that only Hitler believed they could win.
The three assassination plots devised by Lt. Colonel Count Claus Schenk von Stauffenberg in July of 1944 are by far the most well known and indeed bravest attempts to kills Hitler. They involved going straight into one of Hitler's main base of operations, the "Wolfschanze", or in English, The Wolf's Lair. The third attempt was used as the basis of the 2009 film Valkarie, starring Tom Cruise. But all three attempts made by Colonel Stauffenberg were important. The conspirators even got so far in their planning as to determining who would take control if one of their plans actually succeeded.
Lt. Colonel Count Claus Schenk von Stauffenberg was a soldier on the Eastern Front. Even though he officially joined the resistance in 1943, he was actually approached much earlier in 1939 by his Uncle Nikolaus Graf von Üxküll-Gyllenband. At first, he didn't want to join, having pledged allegiance to the Fuehrer. He believed he would be betraying his country if he joined, but as the war dragged on, he started to have a change of heart. Though he and his unit were successful in France, it was during Operation Barbossa, Germany's invasion of Russia, that he began to start thinking about joining the resistance. The reason for this is that though he was initially okay with the racial views of Nazi socialism, he began to consider that the force used and the killing of Jewish people and others were "exaggerated and excessive." After losing his left eye and hand in a bombing, he began to seriously reconsider his views.
He became a part of the resistance after joining the Ersatzheer, basically the German version of the National Guard. His superiors were General Friedrich Olbricht, and Henning von Tresckow, both of whom were committed to the resistance and the death of Hitler. After talking with them, Stauffenberg joined the resistance. He was the point man for Operation Valkarie, which was a program approved by Hitler himself, which stated that should anything happen to him, the military would take over and keep the peace on the streets of Germany. The plan was modified by the resistance in the hopes of overthrowing Hitler, stopping the war, creating peace with the Allies, saving numerous lives- both German soldiers as well as all those still alive in the concentration camps.
Lt. Colonel Count Claus Schenk von Stauffenberg first plan to kill Hitler was simple and similar to the second and third attempts. Stauffenberg would attend a meeting with Hitler at his bunker and a bomb would be in his brief case. His co-conspirator, Captain Friedrich Klausing, would be waiting in a car nearby. The attempt was stopped due to the fact that while Hitler was there, Heinrich Luitpold Himmler who was hitlers Minister of the Interior, and Hermann Göring who was Reichsmarschall or in essensce leader of the army,were not there.
The second attempt was actually at the Wolfschanze, though like the first attempt Himmler wasn't there. It was believed that the only way to make a true military coup possible was to eliminate Hitler and most of his top advisors, so that there would be no question as to who would lead Germany.
The stage was set for the third and final attempt by Lt. Colonel Count Claus Schenk von Stauffenberg to kill Hitler and Hitler's top advisors Himmler and Goering. The final attempt was committed on July 20th 1944. The resistance felt the Gestapo was closing in and it was now or never. It didn't matter if they got Himmler or anyone else- Hitler had to be stopped. Armed with 2,000 grams of Plastik-W explosives, Lt. Colonel Staufenberg went to Wolfchanze to give a brief report on the war efforts in the Eastern Front. He placed his brief case under the table, made his report, then left under the pretext of having to make a phone call. After he left the meeting the plan was for the bomb to go off and after getting word that Hitler was killed, a new government would be put into place.

This next paragraph should be shortened.
While there is no definitive proof of what the new government would have looked like, it is believed that possibly the government would have been formed as follows: General Oberst Ludwig Beck (Army) would have been the President, and Carl Friedrich Goerdeler (DNVP) would have been the Chancellor. There would have been a separation between president and chancellor the first time since before World War II. The rest of the Government would look like this: Wilhelm Leuschner (SPD) would have been Vice-Chancellor, Paul Löbe (SPD) would have been President of the Reichstag. Julius Leber (SPD) or Eugen Bolz (Centre Party) would have been the Minister of the Interior. Friedrich Werner von der Schulenburg or Ulrich von Hassell would have been the Foreign Minister with Ewald Loeser as Minister of Finance, Friedrich Olbricht (Army) as Minister of War, Hans Oster (Army) as President of the Reichskriegsgericht (military supreme court), Hans Koch (Confessing Church) as President of the Reichsgericht (supreme court), Bernhard Letterhaus (catholic trade unionist) as Reconstruction Minister (Minister without portfolio if not appointed), Karl Blessing as Minister of Economics or President of the Reichsbank, Paul Lejeune-Jung (DNVP) as Minister of Economics, Andreas Hermes (Centre Party) as Minister of Agriculture, Josef Wirmer (Centre Party) as Minister of Justice, and Henning von Tresckow (Army) as Chief of Police.
The interesting point here is that looking at this purposed government, it seems to be a multi-party government that would have allowed the voices that were suppressed under Nazi rule to be able to be heard. Another interesting point, is that even though a large portion of the conspirators are mentioned here, not all of those considered for positions in the new government were part of the resistance.
The July 20th Plot failed because the bomb was moved further under the heavy oak table by Colonel Brandt who took Lt. Colonel Count Claus Schenk von Stauffenberg to the meeting. This action might very well have changed history, as researchers have determined that had the bomb not been moved further under the table, Hitler probably would have been killed by the blast. However, the heavy oak table saved his life. The conspirators were mostly rounded up by the Gestapo, and Lt. Colonel Count Claus Schenk von Stauffenberg was killed. His wife and children were also put in prison and were freed later by the Allies.
In closing, it's easy to see that while Hitler was a charismatic, German leader and had many followers, not everyone revered him. Some who did not, did try and do something about it. Most, actually didn't do anything about their hatred for Hitler, but those in higher ranking positions tried their best to stop Hitler. Their motivations were as different as the men themselves. Some were young soldiers. Some were older generals. Some were even just civilians- a carpenter, for instance, who opposed Hitler and Nazism. Some acted alone, others in groups. Some were a part of the resistance, while some were just individuals who had a grudge against Hitler. But the bottom line is, all of the men mentioned in this paper wanted Hitler dead. They wanted World War II to be prevented or stopped peacefully, without Germany being decimated. The interesting thing is that before each of these attempts had failed the men who committed them honestly believed that "Hitler's Germany had seen its final sunrise." (Valkyrie film)

mcnpauls
12-17-2010, 07:37 PM
World war 2 as we know might have been avoided, but a second and bigger war than World War 1 was inevitable, we haven't mentioned yet how utterly evil Stalin's ambitions were, for instance. He would have moved west to conquer and bully other countries come what may.

It was also inevitable that the Japanese Empire would have come into conflict with other powers in Asia.

Mussolini would have made aggressive moves against Abyssinia, Albania, etc, leading to other conflicts.

Most importantly, people usually are not aware that almost the entire German establishment, from decades before the Nazis came to power, saw a future conflict with the USA as inevitable. This goes back to before the First World war. The opening chapters of Adam Tooze's landmark work on the Nazi economy, "The wages of Destruction" form possibly the best statement in English of this. So, even if Germany had won the First World War, its post-war leadership would have sought to prevent what they saw as their otherwise unavoidable domination by the USA by launching a pre-emptive wat to prevent America becoming the world's dominant power.

pianozach
12-17-2010, 11:18 PM
World war 2 as we know might have been avoided, but a second and bigger war than World War 1 was inevitable, we haven't mentioned yet how utterly evil Stalin's ambitions were, for instance. He would have moved west to conquer and bully other countries come what may.

It was also inevitable that the Japanese Empire would have come into conflict with other powers in Asia.

Mussolini would have made aggressive moves against Abyssinia, Albania, etc, leading to other conflicts.

Most importantly, people usually are not aware that almost the entire German establishment, from decades before the Nazis came to power, saw a future conflict with the USA as inevitable. This goes back to before the First World war. The opening chapters of Adam Tooze's landmark work on the Nazi economy, "The wages of Destruction" form possibly the best statement in English of this. So, even if Germany had won the First World War, its post-war leadership would have sought to prevent what they saw as their otherwise unavoidable domination by the USA by launching a pre-emptive wat to prevent America becoming the world's dominant power.

Good points.

Even if Hitler had been stopped pre-Poland invasion, the Japanese had their eyes on the Pacific theatre, and the Soviets were hungry for Eastern Europe, perhaps Western Europe as well. Without Hitler, Mussolini may have filled Germany's role in bringing together the Axis powers.

Had Hitler been assassinated in 1939, 1940, 1941 or 1942, the machine was already in motion. Germany would have had a sticky time trying to unwar itself after its bald-faced aggression, but by then Italy, USSR and Japan were already fully involved, and the loss of Hitler would not have been much of a deterrent.

Of course, Russia switched sides when Germany invaded in 1941, so any assassination of Hitler would have most certainly altered all of these plans whether the 'event' occurred before or after the initial failed invasion.

However . . . As Italy was actually a lesser power than Germany was at the time, Russia may have made it further west in Europe than they otherwise would have.

Had Germany stopped all aggression at any time during the war, the Pacific arena would have had far more American troops available, and may have pushed Japan back far enough that the A-bomb drops might not have been necessary.

. . . . So many possibilities.

Internaut
12-24-2010, 09:46 AM
Good points.

Even if Hitler had been stopped pre-Poland invasion, the Japanese had their eyes on the Pacific theatre, and the Soviets were hungry for Eastern Europe, perhaps Western Europe as well.
already fully involved, and the loss of Hitler would not have been much of a deterrent.

Of course, Russia switched sides when Germany invaded in 1941,

Russia may have made it further west in Europe than they otherwise would have.

Had Germany stopped all aggression at any time during the war, the Pacific arena would have had far more American troops available, and may have pushed Japan back far enough that the A-bomb drops might not have been necessary.

. . . . So many possibilities.

Aside from the reason of saving a projected million plus people during the final military push by the US to Japan, do you think Stalin's push in '45 for the Korean peninsula, northern China and eventually parts of Japan had any influence in the use of the Bombs to end the war and end Stalin's ability to control these areas under the guise of war?

Baily
12-31-2010, 12:09 PM
No, WW2 was not avoidable. Too many what if's and hypotheticals.

If there was 1 big cause it was the policy of appeasement towards Hitler after he annexed Austria in 1938.

cinderella
12-31-2010, 12:33 PM
Hitler's mother wanted to get an abortion.




If only.........

Baily
12-31-2010, 12:40 PM
Hitler's mother wanted to get an abortion.




If only.........


Yes, and Hitler was not allowed to have a sex change operation and that made him go off bigtime!

prem895
12-31-2010, 01:39 PM
WWW2 would not have taken place if the world would have just let the Germans do their job

delaford321
01-03-2011, 04:43 PM
I think it's crazy that pretty much all the current conflicts can be traced back to WWI. from WW2, to the Balkins, to the Israeli conflict, to everything in Africa to Afghanistan. I wish the leaders of the free world had been more responsible in rearranging everyone's boarders.

pianozach
01-03-2011, 11:32 PM
Aside from the reason of saving a projected million plus people during the final military push by the US to Japan, do you think Stalin's push in '45 for the Korean peninsula, northern China and eventually parts of Japan had any influence in the use of the Bombs to end the war and end Stalin's ability to control these areas under the guise of war?

Umm . . . well . . . that's a decidedly pointy question. I don't think that hypothetical realistically has a reasonable answer.

Frankly, Stalin's chances of controlling any part of China on a long-term basis is a sucker bet.

I've forgotten more than I can remember about the history of China, Korea and Japan in the 19th and early 20th century, but it's my impression that China is never really conquered. It assimilates. It is the Borg.

Japan's bald-faced aggression in the Pacific arena is directly related to the long-term relationships of those three nations.

I think that all of the nations involved in WWII had their military capabilities stretched extraordinarily thin, and I think this would have hindered Stalin's eastward expansion plans.


No, WW2 was not avoidable. Too many what if's and hypotheticals.

If there was 1 big cause it was the policy of appeasement towards Hitler after he annexed Austria in 1938.

Peace. Non-aggression. No one wanted to start a war over Austria's seeming willingness to become part of Germany. Not a shot was fired, except in celebration on both sides of the German/Austrian border.

This reminds me of an episode of STAR TREK titled "The City on the Edge of Forever" where Kirk, Spock and McCoy are transported back to New York City during the 1930s Great Depression era. McCoy unintentionally has altered history by preventing the automobile-cause death of an anti-war activist that instead went on to form a pacifist movement whose influence delayed the entry of the United States into World War II; this delay in turn gave Nazi Germany time to develop an atomic bomb and ultimately conquer the world.

I think the episode won a Hugo award.


I think it's crazy that pretty much all the current conflicts can be traced back to WWI. from WW2, to the Balkins, to the Israeli conflict, to everything in Africa to Afghanistan. I wish the leaders of the free world had been more responsible in rearranging everyone's boarders.

Now THAT's probably a safe theory.

Baily
01-04-2011, 12:41 PM
It was apparent by 1938 that Hitler was a dictator. When dictators begin building their military up at huge leaps and bounds as Hitler was doing that is a warning shot across the bow for all of the world to see.

What was Austria to do? German troops occupied their country in 1938. Germany said you are now ours. You cease to exist.

Austria did not want to become part of Germany in 1938 but when you are looking down the throat of dozens of panzer divisions in your backyard what are you going to do?

Come on in boys and have a cup of tea is what you are going to do.

Europe's appeasing a tyrant led to the war.

pianozach
01-05-2011, 11:27 AM
It was apparent by 1938 that Hitler was a dictator. When dictators begin building their military up at huge leaps and bounds as Hitler was doing that is a warning shot across the bow for all of the world to see.

What was Austria to do? German troops occupied their country in 1938. Germany said you are now ours. You cease to exist.

Austria did not want to become part of Germany in 1938 but when you are looking down the throat of dozens of panzer divisions in your backyard what are you going to do?

Come on in boys and have a cup of tea is what you are going to do.

Europe's appeasing a tyrant led to the war.

I'll agree that european appeasement was a terrible decision, and very likely led to the war. But NOT appeasing Hitler would have meant war as well, just sooner.

BTW, when German troops marched into Austria they were met with cheers and flowers. (Those that were opposed to the annexation probably stayed quiet and indoors.)

Baily
01-05-2011, 11:37 AM
I'll agree that european appeasement was a terrible decision, and very likely led to the war. But NOT appeasing Hitler would have meant war as well, just sooner.

BTW, when German troops marched into Austria they were met with cheers and flowers. (Those that were opposed to the annexation probably stayed quiet and indoors.)


Austria had no military at all to defend themselves. I would have met the panzer division with cheers and flowers also and would have thrown in some ale to boot!

Rabin105
02-10-2011, 09:02 PM
Daniel Krohn
Modern Imperialism
2/16/2011

The readings for this week were Orientalism by Edward Said written in 1979 which orientalism is a term used for the depiction of aspects of Eastern cultures, reffering mainly to China Japan North and south korea Inida and the middle east, in the West by writers, designers and artists and an essay by James Lockhart entitled "Sightings: initial Nahua Reactions to Spanish Culture." Lockhart's piece was written in 1994. Both are Imperialism and the concept of "the other." Edward Said's book is considered extremely influential in the study of imperialism and has been translated into 36 languages. The reading for this week was pages 1-110 which show cases the Scope of orientalism, with the other 2 chapters on Orientalist structures and Orientalism Now. I found the scope of orientalism to be the more fascinating of the two pieces due to the fact that Edward Said seemed to feel more human.
What is interesting about both pieces is that one was written during the Cold war and one was written after the cold war though from what i can tell Said's first chapter doesn't have a cold war atmosphere about it which is interesting due to the fact that in 1979 the cold war was still much in everyone's mind in fact the only reference to Cold war at all is that his theory does not encompass Russia's Orientalism or Germany’s orientalism both countries were on the other side of the Iron curtain in 1979 though Said doesn’t mention this it may be due to the political structures at the time of both countries that he felt investigating their view on orientalism would be hard due to possibly not having complete access to their history and culture however Said does not make metion of this and his view as to why he did not include these 2 sections is a mystery. however he does discuss the Orientalism of 1979's world in the third chapter.
I do wish Said would of included more examples of orientalism in pop culture in the 60's and 70's the reason for this is because there are three examples in the late 60's and early 70's that I would of loved to see. The three examples are the beatles music in the 60's and their love of Indian music specifically the Sitar. Also as a James Bond fan I am interested to see see where the Man with the golden gun (1974) would fit in his view of Orientalism. The third example i would of loved to see explored is the American love of Kung Fu films in the early 70's and possibly the orgin of the love of such films came from as that might be great examples of Orientalism in pop culture. Another thing I would of enjoyed would be an explanation of why German and russain orientalism was not included simply gbecause I want to know why he didn't investigate it. Since his critics often point out Said has a hard time dicsenring between Matters of pop culture and cultural views I would love if he had more political view points as well. The reason ebing I just feel that it would of stopped one criticsm in it's tracts and in essecene made for a more ballenced approach.
I liked that Edward Said said his initial argument might be flawed and even points out that it excludes German Orientalism and Russian orientalism. I found this move to be a bold humble and extremely human move which made me want to read his theory in even more depth. The reason I think is because I feel sometimes historians tend to know too much for their own good and then assume they know everything this is clearly not the case with Said. He clearly shows that while he has a theory it's far from fact and doesn't encompass every single example. I also like what he says about German and Russian Orientalism which he states down the road might make for a very interesting case study.
Though the truth of the matter is there are some serious criticisms to Edward Said's work including his claim that the West dominated the world for 2000 years due to the fact Europe had a lot of fear from the Ottoman Empire. The critics also argue that the view pop culture has on the orient versus the view modern academics view the orient is quite different and should not be confused. However I would argue Said already answers this argument with his quotes from various sources on orientalism. In fact critics go as far to argue that his view points in the novel underwrite is credibility as a true historian due to his misreprsentation of facts.
I also found it interesting when Said went through the culture of Orientalism showcasing how it was viewed in European society as well as in their academic, literary and political interiors referencing specific examples from everyone from Henry Kissinger to Dante to Shakespeare to even Napoleon. Looking at how orientalism was viewed in the different aspects of European culture was quite an eye opener. My facourite example of the cultural view of the orient was a poem by Victor Hugo entitled Lui. I found the poem both beautiful as it was nicely written but also tragic due to the view in the poem.
The poem did explain what Said was trying to say about how culture viewed orientalism. Not only was the poem a great example but Said's well versed examples was quite facinating. Seeing Shakespeare Kissinger and Dante being reffered to in the same scope was quite facinating. I think he cherry picked his examples though and felt if he wanted to show case all of the culuture and politcal view points of the west he should of showed a few who were against the norm of orientalism.
In closing I honestly liked orientalism i felt it was a strong work and definitly had a good scope. Said mad a lot of strong interesting points and i got a sense of what he was trying to accomplish with his work. He showcased examples and while there are clearly flaws the overal work was quite strong.

Bo Locks
02-11-2011, 03:44 AM
WWW2 would not have taken place if the world would have just let the Germans do their job
Can you advise us who the world is please?
Can you advise us of the Germans job description?

As someone who lives every day with the consequences of the outcome of WWII, I find the exploration of the what if scenario(s) utterly pointless.

pianozach
02-11-2011, 12:38 PM
WWW2 would not have taken place if the world would have just let the Germans do their job

This post is perplexing . . .

What do you mean by letting "the Germans do their job"? This seems an awfully simplistic and vague answer.

pianozach
02-14-2011, 12:16 AM
WWW2 would not have taken place if the world would have just let the Germans do their job


This post is perplexing . . .

What do you mean by letting "the Germans do their job"? This seems an awfully simplistic and vague answer.

Somehow I don't think you're going to elaborate . . .

orpheus
02-14-2011, 12:59 AM
Could World War 2 have been prevented?
By
Danny Krohn

There is no doubt that although Germany did cause World War 1, the Versailles treaty was extremely unfair to the Germans.




You're on the right track. A generally good paper. I would be careful about sweeping generalizations like "there is no doubt that Germany did cause WWI" or subjective interpretations like " there is no doubt that Hitler was an evil person."

As has been stated here before the causes of WWI were complex and involved a whole series of treaties and alliances and the colonial empire-building mindset of the time.

While it may be true that Hitler was "evil" this is a subjective interpretation and does not add to your thesis other than to give the impression of bias towards your subject. If I was you, I'd stick to interpreting the motivation for his actions from what you know objectively of his background and the and then build your thesis in light of the consequences that followed.

Good research though and a thoughtful analysis.

Good luck.