Oh, please! The italian army was (and still is) a joke, all we could do is invade underdeveloped african countries; we were no more than an hinder to the nazi, luckily.
Oh, please! The italian army was (and still is) a joke, all we could do is invade underdeveloped african countries; we were no more than an hinder to the nazi, luckily.
Hehe... is the Italian army still that bad?
I didn't mean that the army caused any trouble, I meant that the weakness of League sanctions did irreparable damage to its image. Britain and the other League members would not trade useless goods with Italy, but still traded petrol.
No one could take the League seriously, thus giving Hitler the impression that he had free reign (though he still wanted to impress and befriend Britain, which ensured that he wouldn't get too free with Europe)
So I'm not sure that the treaty itself is valuable support for it not being a big war.
If the Rhineland invasion and other invasions were reacted to strictly, the German army wouldn't have been built to the size and strength it was at the start of WWII.
Their invasion of the Rhineland, In my opinion, is just a bit justified. It used to be Prussian land, Germany accepted those it conquered, and it was - well, they're river.
The Rhineland was occupied by plenty of French as well. It wasn't just the French ruling over the Germans. In the eyes of the French, it was French. In the eyes of the Germans, it was German.
The point is that both claimed it, had been fighting over it for too long, and a decision was made. That decision should have been final.
Was there really much to be done? Even to add to that, nobody knew how strong Germany really was.
That's part of my point. Allies needed to attack before anything could have gotten worse. 'Wait and see' tactics aren't very good when you're in the midst of multiple invasions. I know it would be a very tough, ass-hole-like way to react, but it's what needed to be done, and it wasn't. ------------ All this being said, the Germans had a reason to be extremely angry at the French and rest of Europe, especially for the circumstances surrounding their surrender. If I were a German at the time, I would be pissed too! However, what was done was done and should have been solidified.
i don't know. there are great pints for and against it. i guess i would go with yes because it was going to happpen at somepoint in time and we had to have a war before germany got too powerful.
we had to have a war before germany got too powerful
What are you even saying? Germany already was too powerful. With the newly implemented Blitzkrieg tactic, they took over all of Europe in a little over 3 months! They're fast-paced motor-rifle divisions and strategic air support helped them make one of the fastest empires in modern history. They're navy was a substantial equal to the U.K, and if it wasn't for Winston Churchill, the RAF, and their strong reliability in radar, the Brits would have been swept over in Operation Sealion. The truth is, the German Airforce, Navy, and military had already far exceeded the limitations of the Treaty, and was a force unaccounted for. The Germans had gotten too big in the matter of 9 years, and it was a war that was inevitable behind as powerful a political and militarial genius as was Adolf Hitler. Most of Europe stood on the sidelines of the game and muttered quiet opposition to a growing beast, and acted shocked as their countries were invaded, their people taken and massacred at Aushwitz and Treblinka. World War 2 was nessacary, for the weak countires of Europe to be crushed by the underfoot of a giant, and the Allies to come to and obliterate Nazism from the world.
How does one debate the necessity of war? To say war is necessary shows humanity's desire for brutality. My great grandfather fought on the beaches of Normandy on D-day. June 6, 1944.
People justify this war as if the war was a choice. People act as if there was a choice. What choice? What possible choice? The allied nations stood by prior to 1939 because the League of Nation (forerunner of the U.N) was a weak organization and because many did not see the extent of Hitler's evil. Many believed Hitler to be a minor threat. However the invasion of Poland changed that. There was no choice.
Yet, to even debate necessity is dispicable! Necessary? No this war was not necessary! Yet it was forced upon the world because of one man's hunger for control. When something is threatened we fight for it, not because it is necessary, but because we must. This debate should end here and now. World War Two was unnecessary, yet we had to fight.
May they who died in sacrifice never be forgotten.
Well really, im going to reinforce wolf's point for a moment. It was a matter of survival. It was not ONLY the Jewish race in Danger. the Germans were exterminating Slavs, which equil up to half of europes population,which includes msot ogfeastern Europe, Russia, and so on, Black people, which would mean in Nroth Africa, Spain, and they were also killing Homosexauls, Muslims, anyone who was not the typical, White German Aryan blonde haired blue eyed race. So, on the ethnic standpoint, it was a matter of SURVIVAL. And also for nations that didn't have that problem of extermination, they would ahve eithier been a Military or Economic threat to Germany. Britain is a prime example. Why else would the Germans come over with a huge armada of planes, they wanted to obliterate England to the point where they couldn't compete with them Econimically, or in MIlitary, and leave a natio na Demorilzied hole. and Thank Winston Churchhill that they didn't, and all the RAF pilots. And it wouldn't have stopped in Europe eithier if we didn't fight. Japan, and later Germany, would join in the fight, probably start in South America first because of resources, and my modern home, the Dominican Republic, would be controlled. Then all thats really left is America. By that time, Japan would have eithier wrestled control of all of China,and probably be taking control of or cotnrolling India. So it was a matter of Survival. Not of neccessity. so, Wolf. I agree with you on that point. But im not sure these people realize what war TRULY is. It's not jsut a economic free for all, or just some incident we can just look at and mabye thin kof stepping in, or whether we go in or not. It's a matter of life or death. Thats why I hate speaking of wars on these forumns, as the majority of people have never experienced a war, hell, probabyl nto even a naturual disaster, once in thier lives. So, Bon chance people, ahi nos vemos!
Yes it was nessicary. First of all, the Treat of Versailles was unfair to the Garman people. France demanded a repayment of about 88 million dollars, which would have but Germany in Debt into the 80's if thwere was a war. If German wasn't the main aggressor, then the Soviet Union would have started te war. The Soviet Union was unstable, and tuled by that Crazy man Stalin. Stalin as more blood thirst than Adolf Hitler. Hitler's Genocide= 6 million Stalin's= 40-60 million.
Now From the German stance, war was nessasary, they needed to get out of debt and the Weimer Republic was failing. Adolf Hitler was a great political speaker in a tough time. He easily gained control of Germany and begain to tear through Europe. The only Blunder in his war plans was that he didn't capture the caucaus oil fields in Russia. If he did, the World would be under Control of the Third Reich. Now regarding the extermination of the Jews, it was destined. If you go back to biblical times, it was said in the bible that the jews were t be god's chosen people. However once they killed Jesus (aka God's son) they fell out of favor with god, and ever since have been persucuted. So, Hitler was just the person who carried out the killing and anti semitism, while anyone else could have done it.
From America's stand point, no. America only needed to go to war after Japan had bombed them, if they hadn't Ammerica would have just stood by until The Armies of Nazi German were living in the White House.
Thank you ComradeWolf. I have never experienced war or a natural distaster, however I learn from my family history and I listened to my great grandfather. I have no true understanding of war, but I understand why this war was fought. It saddens me to see people jump to defend their history in such a blind manor.
From America's stand point, no. America only needed to go to war after Japan had bombed them, if they hadn't Ammerica would have just stood by until The Armies of Nazi German were living in the White House.
Such patriotism is an affront to history. The Roosevelt Administration pulled a political stunt known as Real Politik. It is making one country attack you, or making another country look bad so that your citizens will support a war. America cut off Japanese oil supplies, forcing them to attack. The Americans then used the Axis alliance to join the war on the european front.
It was necessary for the U.S. to recover from the Great Depression. You could argue it was for the other countries also. If we didn't get out of the depression, then the import and exports that the other countries established wouldn't have happened, thus the economy wouldn't be the same as it is today, which in my opinion wouldn't be too bad.
