Who Is Responsible for World War 2? Could It Have Been Avoided?

[cegorach]

Depending on how far back you want to go there were certainly a number of ways World War 2 could have been prevented.

-From 1933-36 the Polish or French on their own could have defeated Germany easily, after that an alliance (certainly with Czechoslovakia involved) could have still defeated Germany in all likelihood.
-In 1938, the Munich betrayal. Czechoslovakia had a formidable army superior in artillery to the Germans, combined with the Polish, French and British it could have defeated Germany.
-If Poland wasn't so unwilling to deal with the USSR there might have been an alliance between them, the French and the British that could have overrun Germany just as easily (provided the Soviet Union was trustworthy in this instance)

According to Beck there was a proposal to create transit corridors for the Red Army in case if the alliance was ever created, but the Soviet side didn't want anything so... limited.

If those 100+ Soviet divisions were ever going to move anywhere inside Poland some accomodation was necessary otherwise the country was just as well as dead and without firing a single shot.
Hardly a good idea.

[conon394]

-From 1933-36 the Polish or French on their own could have defeated Germany easily, after that an alliance (certainly with Czechoslovakia involved) could have still defeated Germany in all likelihood.
-In 1938, the Munich betrayal. Czechoslovakia had a formidable army superior in artillery to the Germans, combined with the Polish, French and British it could have defeated Germany.
-If Poland wasn't so unwilling to deal with the USSR there might have been an alliance between them, the French and the British that could have overrun Germany just as easily (provided the Soviet Union was trustworthy in this instance)
-Germany could have been left more territorially intact after WW1 and had less war reparations dumped on them but some of the post-war economic malaise could not be avoided and the Wall Street crash would still occur, boosting Hitler's popularity.

All very much easier said than done by those with perfect hindsight…

-In 1938, the Munich betrayal. Czechoslovakia had a formidable army superior in artillery to the Germans, combined with the Polish, French and British it could have defeated Germany.

Czechoslovakia also collapsed almost completely. The Slovak rump state emerged as an eager Germans toady and the Sudeten Germans were hardly loyal to the ‘own’ country.

What makes(made) the Czechoslovakia army ‘formidable’ is it veteran status having fought many wars during the 20s and earlier 30s? Fortifications and terrain – oh wait France had those too. Veterans and observers from the ‘Czech legion’ in the Spanish civil war who brought back novel concepts of maneuver warfare? Air force it must be the air force – modern planes, as large as the German aifroce, with effective close support doctrine right…


Look sarcasm aside this is just too over done. The France were absolutely not ready to fight, the UK was just starting to rearm and its own dominions (Canada South Africa, Australia) were not going to go to war for the UK over the Sudetenland. If Canada turned it back on the UK you can be sure the FDR would never mange to budge US isolationist tendencies toward Europe. In 39 after the Hitler violated Munich deal and after he attacked Poland the French and UK could still only get equivocal – to nonexistent cooperation out of the Low Countries during the phony war what would happen in 38? Oh I suppose France could violate Neutral status but that kinda hurts your image and conflicts what you are fight for .

Yes Germany was weaker and it gained considerable undamaged industry and arms with eh non fighting victory but France and the UK were also much weaker.

-If Poland wasn't so unwilling to deal with the USSR there might have been an alliance between them, the French and the British that could have overrun Germany just as easily (provided the Soviet Union was trustworthy in this instance)

Come now this is the kind of thing only historians in the UK or US can possibly find viable. Great let Stalin and troops save your country from Hitler, and then when the crisis is over I’m sure Uncle Joe would just leave right? Poland had no desire to be a Russian puppet it seems to me nobody would have ever voted for such move or any leader back it. Moreover I don’t imagine most anyone in Poland can really have understood just how appalling German conquest would be – I suspect of course most people would have though a brief German occupation while France and the UK attacked Germany than let Stalin in forever.

-From 1933-36 the Polish or French on their own could have defeated Germany easily, after that an alliance (certainly with Czechoslovakia involved) could have still defeated Germany in all likelihood.

And this would work how??? The reason Hitler could push the envelope for so long is a genuine feeling that the allies had been too harsh after WW1, how would some Franco-Polish invasion change anything. Oh it might get rid of Adolph but would it not just embitter the German population even more making Germany even more fertile ground for some other dictator, or simply empower the Communists such that they succeeded and proved a World war with the western allies fighting the USSR over the carcass of Germany?

[cegorach]

Come now this is the kind of thing only historians in the UK or US can possibly find viable. Great let Stalin and troops save your country from Hitler, and then when the crisis is over I’m sure Uncle Joe would just leave right? Poland had no desire to be a Russian puppet it seems to me nobody would have ever voted for such move or any leader back it. Moreover I don’t imagine most anyone in Poland can really have understood just how appalling German conquest would be – I suspect of course most people would have though a brief German occupation while France and the UK attacked Germany than let Stalin in forever.

Precisely. For example Edward Rydz-Śmigły had rather poor opinion about the French army (especially its reservists) and thought that it is quite probable that Poland would be occupied.

Also, exactly as you are saying nobody expected such bestiality - german occupation between 1915 and 1918 was not too harsh - the POW (underground organisation established by Pilsudski) could organise its cells really easily everywhere and was able to occupy territories left by the German forces the moment Germans started retreating.

It seems everybody thought it would be similar to the situation 20 years earlier. Besides Germany wasn't capable to devour Poland - over 22 million people (if Jews and all possible volksdeutche are excluded) cannot be ignored.
Of course unless you kill them all, but something like this was unthinkable.

Stalin on the other hand... he already eliminated over 100 000 ethnic Poles in Ukraine and Belorus (1932-34), not to mention Holodomor and other massacres - nothing good could be expected.

[Koelkastmagneet]

According to Beck there was a proposal to create transit corridors for the Red Army in case if the alliance was ever created, but the Soviet side didn't want anything so... limited.

If those 100+ Soviet divisions were ever going to move anywhere inside Poland some accomodation was necessary otherwise the country was just as well as dead and without firing a single shot.
Hardly a good idea.

True, I hardly think the Soviets were trustworthy in this case.

All very much easier said than done by those with perfect hindsight…

Yes it is, and I'm not claiming it all to be easy but this is what the thread is meant for.

Czechoslovakia also collapsed almost completely. The Slovak rump state emerged as an eager Germans toady and the Sudeten Germans were hardly loyal to the ‘own’ country.

What makes(made) the Czechoslovakia army ‘formidable’ is it veteran status having fought many wars during the 20s and earlier 30s? Fortifications and terrain – oh wait France had those too. Veterans and observers from the ‘Czech legion’ in the Spanish civil war who brought back novel concepts of maneuver warfare? Air force it must be the air force – modern planes, as large as the German aifroce, with effective close support doctrine right…

Sarcasm, cute.

Look sarcasm aside this is just too over done. The France were absolutely not ready to fight, the UK was just starting to rearm and its own dominions (Canada South Africa, Australia) were not going to go to war for the UK over the Sudetenland. If Canada turned it back on the UK you can be sure the FDR would never mange to budge US isolationist tendencies toward Europe. In 39 after the Hitler violated Munich deal and after he attacked Poland the French and UK could still only get equivocal – to nonexistent cooperation out of the Low Countries during the phony war what would happen in 38? Oh I suppose France could violate Neutral status but that kinda hurts your image and conflicts what you are fight for .

Sheer numbers and a strategical advantage still count for something, the Germans were outmanned and a great deal of the Czechoslovak equipment was equal or superior to theirs.

Yes Germany was weaker and it gained considerable undamaged industry and arms with eh non fighting victory but France and the UK were also much weaker.

Germany was practically surrounded in this instance, France still had in theory one of the best armies of Europe and Britian had naval superiority.

Come now this is the kind of thing only historians in the UK or US can possibly find viable. Great let Stalin and troops save your country from Hitler, and then when the crisis is over I’m sure Uncle Joe would just leave right? Poland had no desire to be a Russian puppet it seems to me nobody would have ever voted for such move or any leader back it. Moreover I don’t imagine most anyone in Poland can really have understood just how appalling German conquest would be – I suspect of course most people would have though a brief German occupation while France and the UK attacked Germany than let Stalin in forever.

Which is why I said: "(provided the Soviet Union was trustworthy in this instance)" Which I very much doubt, it's just a possibility. The allies were willing to abandon Poland in the real course of history to.

And this would work how??? The reason Hitler could push the envelope for so long is a genuine feeling that the allies had been too harsh after WW1, how would some Franco-Polish invasion change anything. Oh it might get rid of Adolph but would it not just embitter the German population even more making Germany even more fertile ground for some other dictator, or simply empower the Communists such that they succeeded and proved a World war with the western allies fighting the USSR over the carcass of Germany?

As you said, it would stop Hitler, another figure might arise but at the very least World War 2 would be put of for a couple of years.

[conon394]

Yes it is, and I'm not claiming it all to be easy but this is what the thread is meant for.

True, I just find most of the could have stopped WW2 typical points extremely unlikely and colored too much by knowing what happened.

Thus the problem with this…

As you said, it would stop Hitler, another figure might arise but at the very least World War 2 would be put of for a couple of years.

Look the thing is looking back one can say many other ‘World Wars‘ could have occurred but lacking Hitler and his Nazi buddies they likely would not have been quite so awful (or least that is the typical assumption). Thus the repercussion of any of these alternative points when Hitler could have been stopped are typically ignored, glossed over etc. since everyone knows how awful Hitler and friends were and how irrational they turned out to be.

But ‘could’ implies more than just the possibility but some potential for reality. You could say sure the British could have funded a grand, vast wet works operation from 35 onward aimed at liquidating all Nazi party members of any standing via assassination and hand-in-hand a huge anti Nazi propaganda effort … You can make any number of what – ifs

The thing is the Western powers were rather committed to avoiding war. The US was wrapped up in isolationism. The British Dominions had just about zero interest in a fighting another war in Europe and certain none at all over just Germany throwing off what came to viewed as poor decisions from the post WW1 victors. Most countries in Eastern Europe had no reason to trust Stalin more than Hitler and at least Hitler was starting from a smaller starting point. France was completely demoralized, politically divided and aside from a large army with old man generals (and poor doctrine) it had little in the way of really modern arms for the war that was coming (an air force etc). FInally It hard to argue anyone had a clear understanding of Hitler - even Stalin with good intel, and the knowing what kind of anti communist, and Russian, anti Slav rhetoric the Nazis spewed still thought he could deal with Hitler as late as 41.

Sarcasm, cute.

Sorry but I did note that myself…

Sheer numbers and a strategical advantage still count for something, the Germans were outmanned and a great deal of the Czechoslovak equipment was equal or superior to theirs.

And the very same situation existed in 39…

Equipment – bah the same can be said for the UK and France – hell the UK was more motorized, France had great tanks etc… I stand by the earlier post what says the Czech state would not simply disintegrate or that they would have better answer for the tactical air support skill Germany had put in place? Its also worth noting the Russian army had far better equipment than Finland and that was such a cake walk for the Red Army.

Germany was practically surrounded in this instance, France still had in theory one of the best armies of Europe and Britain had naval superiority.

So this did what in 39?

[ELITEOFKINGWARMAN8]

It is simple. If the allies didn't act stupid and punished the Germans harshly, then WW2 would not have happen, or if it did, not as bad or long.

[conon394]

It is simple. If the allies didn't act stupid and punished the Germans harshly, then WW2 would not have happen, or if it did, not as bad or long.

Really just that simple - nothing else not the depression the rise of fascism or communism the Japanese and American issues would matter huh? SO the allies don't punish Germany so harsh what's to say Germany does not simply make another bid for hegemony on the continent a few years sooner?

[Danny_K_1]

Probably just echoing what has been said but I do think a large portion of it would have been avoidable, if France and Britain grew some balls and stood up and told Germany enough is enough instead of trying to appease I think it wouldn't have been as nearly as big a problem as it was. As for the rest of the world, who knows.

[Koelkastmagneet]

Probably just echoing what has been said but I do think a large portion of it would have been avoidable, if France and Britain grew some balls and stood up and told Germany enough is enough instead of trying to appease I think it wouldn't have been as nearly as big a problem as it was. As for the rest of the world, who knows.

That's easier said then done, by the time appeasement came to be Germany was already mobilized and ready while Great Britain and France were still in the process of rearmament.

[Sir Pignans]

That's easier said then done, by the time appeasement came to be Germany was already mobilized and ready while Great Britain and France were still in the process of rearmament.

To be fair, I think Hitler actually gave his generals orders' to retreat if the French army attacked them when they re-militarized the Rhine land, so if Britain and France had shown some balls.....

Any who, I personally think it was a combination of factors.

1) The treaty of versailles, the Germans were punished far too severely due to demands mainly be France and to lesser extent by Britain, and to be fair, you can blame France after most of the fighting was on their land?

2) The Great depression, without it countries would be looking outwards much more, rather than inwards trying to solve there own problems, in addition to this the great depression also caused the rise of nazism (Debatable that last bit, but hey, I'm of that opinion).

3) The league of nations, if that clumsy old predecessor to the UN had actually done it's job, then allot of conflicts could possible have been avoided. Personally, I blame the US on this account, after all it was Wilson's idea to set it up and yet America never joined. Really it would/should of been the keystone to its success, because in its place, was Britain and France, France just didn't care (There was probably another reason, just can't place my finger on it right now), while Britain was more worried about the empire.

In reality, there were many other reasons, but in my opinion, those were the main contributing ones.

[Heavy Weapons Guy]

Yes, if Germany had won 1st!!!!

[Heavy Weapons Guy]

With a vacuum emerging and people turning to either the far right or left as possibilities to avoid depression it became inevitable that someone would use fascism or communism to form a new world order under their hegemony. If Hitler hadn't started WWII I wouldn't have been too surprised if Stalin wasn't planning on the spread of communism.

My Grandfather said that Stalin was preparing for offensive war against Europe!!! If Germany hadn't started WW2, USSR would had!!!!

[conon394]

My Grandfather said that Stalin was preparing for offensive war against Europe!!!

Although in the short run Stalin's attempts to bend over backward to make a deal with Hitler suggest otherwise.

[Stark of Winterfell]

I think the unreadiness of the Red Army speaks to Stalin probably not preparing to invade just yet. Stalin bending over backwards to make deals would have been a good way of convincing Germany that he wasn't planning war-thus setting up a Russian surprise attack, except that the total confusion in the immediate wake of Barbarossa does not suggest an army on the verge of staging an all out invasion.

[Domen123]

France still had in theory one of the best armies of Europe

"One of the best armies of Europe" is true - but Europe had only several good and big armies at that time.

[Sir Pignans]

Although in the short run Stalin's attempts to bend over backward to make a deal with Hitler suggest otherwise.

To be fair, the Red army was woefully under-equipped/supplied to take on the might of the German army (well at least, mount a prolonged offensive against them) so it could be argued that Stalin was just trying to stall the inevitable for a few months.

To be fair though, I don't think Stalin ever wanted to be the spark, I think his plan was to wait until the european powers had exhausted each other fighting, and then swamp the remnants.

[ivan_the_terrible]

My Grandfather said that Stalin was preparing for offensive war against Europe!!! If Germany hadn't started WW2, USSR would had!!!!

Was your grandfather a close associate of Stalin's?

[Lord Claremorris]

My Grandfather said that Stalin was preparing for offensive war against Europe!!! If Germany hadn't started WW2, USSR would had!!!!

I don't see any evidence supporting this. In fact, all the evidence would suggest to the contrary. And please do refrain from posting every sentence with three exclamation points for punctuation. Your Grandfather may have had theories, like anyone else, but, as Sherlock Holmes was so fond of saying "It's quite dangerous theorising when one does not possess all the details."

[Romano-Dacis]

To be fair, I think Hitler actually gave his generals orders' to retreat if the French army attacked them when they re-militarized the Rhine land, so if Britain and France had shown some balls....

Precisely When Germany reoccupied the Rhineland, Hitler had specifically ordered his troops to withdraw at any sign of French mobilization. Had the French moved it would have stopped then and there.

1) The treaty of versailles, the Germans were punished far too severely due to demands mainly be France and to lesser extent by Britain, and to be fair, you can blame France after most of the fighting was on their land?

A lot of people love to pin WW2 on WW1's victory; after all, it's the best way to avoid accountability for the whole pacifism before the invasion of Poland. The truth of the matter is there is almost no evidence at all that the harsh terms of the Treaty of Versailles caused World War 2, or that more lenient terms would have prevented it. A more lenient treaty would have undoubtedly not removed the humiliation of defeat ("stab in the back" anyone?) and would have just left an even stronger Germany in Round 2. Take a look at the treaties imposed on the Austro-Hungarian Empire, or on the Ottoman Empire. Those states however did not start another world war. In the case of Austria and Hungary it was because the Allies had made the very smart move of surrounding the losers with very strong enemies (Yugoslavia, Romania, Czechoslovakia). Those three states were successful counterweights to any revisionism by the Hungarians or Austrians. That is precisely what France, England, and to a lesser extent Poland, were supposed to be for Germany. Too bad however that Germany was given free reign.

The idea of "avoiding war by going to war" might sound kind of counter-intuitive, but a rapid response at the Rhineland would have mitigated the entire war. The Germans would have been paralyzed by the thought of fighting France and Britain again, the Allies' in the East would have been reassured that the situation was under control, and who knows, maybe the League of Nations would have survived even without the US. Instead, initiative was handed to Germany which used it to devastating effect.

[Sir Pignans]

A lot of people love to pin WW2 on WW1's victory; after all, it's the best way to avoid accountability for the whole pacifism before the invasion of Poland. The truth of the matter is there is almost no evidence at all that the harsh terms of the Treaty of Versailles caused World War 2, or that more lenient terms would have prevented it. A more lenient treaty would have undoubtedly not removed the humiliation of defeat ("stab in the back" anyone?) and would have just left an even stronger Germany in Round 2. Take a look at the treaties imposed on the Austro-Hungarian Empire, or on the Ottoman Empire. Those states however did not start another world war. In the case of Austria and Hungary it was because the Allies had made the very smart move of surrounding the losers with very strong enemies (Yugoslavia, Romania, Czechoslovakia). Those three states were successful counterweights to any revisionism by the Hungarians or Austrians. That is precisely what France, England, and to a lesser extent Poland, were supposed to be for Germany. Too bad however that Germany was given free reign.

The idea of "avoiding war by going to war" might sound kind of counter-intuitive, but a rapid response at the Rhineland would have mitigated the entire war. The Germans would have been paralyzed by the thought of fighting France and Britain again, the Allies' in the East would have been reassured that the situation was under control, and who knows, maybe the League of Nations would have survived even without the US. Instead, initiative was handed to Germany which used it to devastating effect.

First of all, I already said that if Britain and France had shown some initiative and stopped Germany militarizing the Rhineland WW2 would not have happened, or at worst, happened much later than it did. May of phrased that badly though if you didn't understand.

Secondly, in the case of Turkey, there was actually a war (Not sure to what extent, might of been a civil war) that abolished the first treaty of Severes, and led to the treaty of Lausanne.

Thirdly, in the case of Austria-Hungary, I do believe the treaty separated up different groups of people and created the new countries. Plus, Austria Hungary didn’t suffer as much as Germany.

However, don’t think for one moment that I don’t think appeasement had its part to play as well, I mean, it did, but once Hitler had come to power, things were inevitable, all we could of done would of been to stall him.

But it could be argued that Hitler would never of had come to power after Versailles if the treaty had been different, these can be separated into three main things that were wrong with it in my opinion:

Firstly: The ‘guilt clause’ this undoubtedly caused allot of unhappiness in Germany, and led to much for the bitterness that emerged out of WW1.

Secondly: Reparations meant that the German economy was hampered from the start although it is arguable whether this would of had any effect when the Great depression hit.

Thirdly: The government system lacked a strong government, as the voting system meant that there was never a majority in the Reichstag, which meant that coalitions needed to be formed, and so there were lots of disagreements.

Sorry about the quality of this post, I tried posting it but it failed and I needed to type the whole thing out again, which lead to it being of a lower quality than I would of liked.