Who caused world war 2?
Now, in my opinion, if you look at the information, Britain are actually a lot to blame themselves.
Hitler tested the water several times with Britain and they let him get away with different things.
For example, when Hitler ordered his men into the Rhineland to take it back, Britain simply said that Hitler had 'stepped into his own back garden'
For me, it could of been stopped here and Hitler controlled before he increased the numbers of the German army, as Hitler had ordered his men out of the Rhineland if opposed by French or British.
However, Britain and France showed Hitler that they were willing to back down and forget the Treaty of Versailles.
This is just one of a few occasions that Britain and France backed down to give Hitler his way, allowing him to become more and more powerful.
Thoughts?
Posted from TSR Mobile
Hitler tested the water several times with Britain and they let him get away with different things.
For example, when Hitler ordered his men into the Rhineland to take it back, Britain simply said that Hitler had 'stepped into his own back garden'
For me, it could of been stopped here and Hitler controlled before he increased the numbers of the German army, as Hitler had ordered his men out of the Rhineland if opposed by French or British.
However, Britain and France showed Hitler that they were willing to back down and forget the Treaty of Versailles.
This is just one of a few occasions that Britain and France backed down to give Hitler his way, allowing him to become more and more powerful.
Thoughts?
Posted from TSR Mobile
Scroll to see replies
I agree with you that the policy of appeasement was a disaster, and merely gave encouragement to Hitler. You also should mention Britain acquiescing in German and Italian intervention in Spain (while blocking arms shipments to the Spanish Republic), as well as acquiescing in the annexation of the Sudetenland and Austria.
However, I would say that despite this, it was ultimately Germany which was the driving force behind these events, and thus Germany who bears ultimate responsibility for the war.
However, I would say that despite this, it was ultimately Germany which was the driving force behind these events, and thus Germany who bears ultimate responsibility for the war.
Appeasement was partly to Blame, but what you've got to remember is Britain is an island and in order for us to go to war, we need to have a strong naval foothold. During the 20s and the 30s, expenditure on the navy was drastically small in comparison what it needed to be. Chamberlain was most likely playing for time. Also, Hitler's Foreign policy towards the Russian's was one of hate and how he viewed Russia as a nation, to be the perfect solution to his ultimate problem - natural resources. In order to conquer Russia and the oil rich fields of the Caucasus, Hitler had to pick between fighting a Western front or an Eastern front. Chamberlain believed, that Hitler would invade Russia first and thus, give the allies the time to deliver a concise blow. This could be why Chamberlain was so lapse in his response to the troubles unfolding in Europe during the 30s.
Original post by Fayepenguin
Now, in my opinion, if you look at the information, Britain are actually a lot to blame themselves.
Hitler tested the water several times with Britain and they let him get away with different things.
For example, when Hitler ordered his men into the Rhineland to take it back, Britain simply said that Hitler had 'stepped into his own back garden'
For me, it could of been stopped here and Hitler controlled before he increased the numbers of the German army, as Hitler had ordered his men out of the Rhineland if opposed by French or British.
However, Britain and France showed Hitler that they were willing to back down and forget the Treaty of Versailles.
This is just one of a few occasions that Britain and France backed down to give Hitler his way, allowing him to become more and more powerful.
Thoughts?
Posted from TSR Mobile
Hitler tested the water several times with Britain and they let him get away with different things.
For example, when Hitler ordered his men into the Rhineland to take it back, Britain simply said that Hitler had 'stepped into his own back garden'
For me, it could of been stopped here and Hitler controlled before he increased the numbers of the German army, as Hitler had ordered his men out of the Rhineland if opposed by French or British.
However, Britain and France showed Hitler that they were willing to back down and forget the Treaty of Versailles.
This is just one of a few occasions that Britain and France backed down to give Hitler his way, allowing him to become more and more powerful.
Thoughts?
Posted from TSR Mobile
I don't think you can blame Britain and France. So many men died in the first war the governments were willing to do a lot of appeasement to stop another war.
I believe the Seccond war has a lot of causes in the first war. I believe in 1000 years historians will study the two as one overarching event that has roots in imperialism, industrialisation, nationalism and other emerging modern ideologies.
If we just consider 1939, so the answer is simple: German Reich. It attacked Poland which was the begin of World War II later on. But we consider the years before national socialism came to power, then there were some things which caused World War II: hyperinflation in 1923 and world economic crisis in 1930 which were the reasons why NSDAP became popular by the German population. It was the important step in coming to power in 1933 in my opinion. Not forget the mentioned treaty of Versailles which reparations claims were impossible to fulfill for German Reich. That is why the German population began to suffered under these conditions and the fact, the German Reich want to fulfill the treaty of Versailles caused a bad atmosphere in the country at that time. In my point of view the treaty of Versailles was one of the reasons too why the first democratic form of government, Weimar Republic, was failed.
Original post by Fayepenguin
Now, in my opinion, if you look at the information, Britain are actually a lot to blame themselves.
Hitler tested the water several times with Britain and they let him get away with different things.
For example, when Hitler ordered his men into the Rhineland to take it back, Britain simply said that Hitler had 'stepped into his own back garden'
For me, it could of been stopped here and Hitler controlled before he increased the numbers of the German army, as Hitler had ordered his men out of the Rhineland if opposed by French or British.
However, Britain and France showed Hitler that they were willing to back down and forget the Treaty of Versailles.
This is just one of a few occasions that Britain and France backed down to give Hitler his way, allowing him to become more and more powerful.
Thoughts?
Posted from TSR Mobile
Hitler tested the water several times with Britain and they let him get away with different things.
For example, when Hitler ordered his men into the Rhineland to take it back, Britain simply said that Hitler had 'stepped into his own back garden'
For me, it could of been stopped here and Hitler controlled before he increased the numbers of the German army, as Hitler had ordered his men out of the Rhineland if opposed by French or British.
However, Britain and France showed Hitler that they were willing to back down and forget the Treaty of Versailles.
This is just one of a few occasions that Britain and France backed down to give Hitler his way, allowing him to become more and more powerful.
Thoughts?
Posted from TSR Mobile
My opinion is that Britain and France wanted to go to war and appeasement was just buying time. Think about it, Communism was a huge threat to Europe and was even a driving force in the rise of Nazism. It was a very real possibility that Hitler would choose to expand into Russia first (lebensraum).
In my opinion, this is what Britain was waiting for, but it didn't happen, Germany and USSR signed a pact and they were going to divide Poland, it was when the Western countries realised there wasn't going to be an eastern front (so they thought) and the attack on Poland was then the excuse to start war with Germany. Appeasement was a cover for buying time and I don't believe any government truly believed it would be a strive for peace.
Original post by Creat0r
My opinion is that Britain and France wanted to go to war and appeasement was just buying time. Think about it, Communism was a huge threat to Europe and was even a driving force in the rise of Nazism. It was a very real possibility that Hitler would choose to expand into Russia first (lebensraum).
In my opinion, this is what Britain was waiting for, but it didn't happen, Germany and USSR signed a pact and they were going to divide Poland, it was when the Western countries realised there wasn't going to be an eastern front (so they thought) and the attack on Poland was then the excuse to start war with Germany. Appeasement was a cover for buying time and I don't believe any government truly believed it would be a strive for peace.
In my opinion, this is what Britain was waiting for, but it didn't happen, Germany and USSR signed a pact and they were going to divide Poland, it was when the Western countries realised there wasn't going to be an eastern front (so they thought) and the attack on Poland was then the excuse to start war with Germany. Appeasement was a cover for buying time and I don't believe any government truly believed it would be a strive for peace.
I totally agree with you
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by Jacob :)
I don't think you can blame Britain and France. So many men died in the first war the governments were willing to do a lot of appeasement to stop another war.
I believe the Seccond war has a lot of causes in the first war. I believe in 1000 years historians will study the two as one overarching event that has roots in imperialism, industrialisation, nationalism and other emerging modern ideologies.
I believe the Seccond war has a lot of causes in the first war. I believe in 1000 years historians will study the two as one overarching event that has roots in imperialism, industrialisation, nationalism and other emerging modern ideologies.
Yes but what I'm saying is, if Britain and France had not let Hitler fulfil his foreign policy, and become more powerful by increasing the military, he wouldn't have had the strength to even begin thinking about facing Britain and France in a war.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by Fayepenguin
Yes but what I'm saying is, if Britain and France had not let Hitler fulfil his foreign policy, and become more powerful by increasing the military, he wouldn't have had the strength to even begin thinking about facing Britain and France in a war.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Posted from TSR Mobile
Yeh sure but you can't blame the Western Allies for not wanting to fight another war. The first was horrific enough.
Original post by Jacob :)
Yeh sure but you can't blame the Western Allies for not wanting to fight another war. The first was horrific enough.
Yeah I agree. But like I said, war would not have been the case to stop Hitler in the beginning, when he and Germany had no power. Yes the reparations were unfair, however personally I don't think lack of military and land taken from Germany was harsh.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by Fayepenguin
Yeah I agree. But like I said, war would not have been the case to stop Hitler in the beginning, when he and Germany had no power. Yes the reparations were unfair, however personally I don't think lack of military and land taken from Germany was harsh.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Posted from TSR Mobile
Western Europe was also very concerned about the USSR. The Reds were only allies of necessity.
Original post by Fayepenguin
Now, in my opinion, if you look at the information, Britain are actually a lot to blame themselves.
Hitler tested the water several times with Britain and they let him get away with different things.
For example, when Hitler ordered his men into the Rhineland to take it back, Britain simply said that Hitler had 'stepped into his own back garden'
For me, it could of been stopped here and Hitler controlled before he increased the numbers of the German army, as Hitler had ordered his men out of the Rhineland if opposed by French or British.
However, Britain and France showed Hitler that they were willing to back down and forget the Treaty of Versailles.
This is just one of a few occasions that Britain and France backed down to give Hitler his way, allowing him to become more and more powerful.
Thoughts?
Posted from TSR Mobile
Hitler tested the water several times with Britain and they let him get away with different things.
For example, when Hitler ordered his men into the Rhineland to take it back, Britain simply said that Hitler had 'stepped into his own back garden'
For me, it could of been stopped here and Hitler controlled before he increased the numbers of the German army, as Hitler had ordered his men out of the Rhineland if opposed by French or British.
However, Britain and France showed Hitler that they were willing to back down and forget the Treaty of Versailles.
This is just one of a few occasions that Britain and France backed down to give Hitler his way, allowing him to become more and more powerful.
Thoughts?
Posted from TSR Mobile
Hitler remilitarized the Rhineland in March 1936. I very much doubt that had the French and Brits ordered it he'd have simply left with his tail between his legs. Why would he? He already had military superiority. Or he was mad enough not to care anyway.
Original post by Fayepenguin
Yeah I agree. But like I said, war would not have been the case to stop Hitler in the beginning, when he and Germany had no power. Yes the reparations were unfair, however personally I don't think lack of military and land taken from Germany was harsh.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Posted from TSR Mobile
But its wrong to imagine that Germany had no power in 1936.
Original post by Fayepenguin
Thoughts?
Thoughts?
Simple. World war II was caused by the Versailles treaty which gave Hitler many arguments to come to power and which also make the life o an average german citizen. The treaty recquired that Germany should pay vaste reparations to Uk and France although Germany was economically ruined. Now, imagine that UK has about 50% of population are living below the poverty line and the government instead of helping its own people gives about 60% of income to the EU. That was Germany in the 1920ies. In such state of chaos Hitler saw an oportunity and gain power.
The treaty of Versailles was a result of nationalism that was present in the UK and France after World war I; therefore they own an apology to Germany for being cruel toward them in the 1920ies instead buliding peacefull cooperation.
[QUOTE="Fayepenguin;43038824"]
For example, when Hitler ordered his men into the Rhineland to take it back, Britain simply said that Hitler had 'stepped into his own back garden'
The population of the Rhineland wanted to be part of Germany and it should never be taken away in first place. By the time when it was given back to Germany it was to late.
France occupied to Rhineland as a garantee that Germany would pay its reparations
In my opinion appeasement was a sound policy. The United Kingdom was in no way prepared to fight another war at the time and by delaying any hostilities it allowed the British and French armed forces to re-arm during the inter-war period. Furthermore you have to understand that the Treaty of Versailles was in general deemed too harsh by British politicians, it was only the French that pushed so hard for the various restrictions. British politicians saw the Treaty of Versailles as being unfair in places and unrealistic to expect the Weimar Republic and later Nazi Germany to abide by it forever. To them appeasement was the natural process of letting the treaty die and allowing Germany to restore its great power status.
To blame Britain for the war is too far in my estimations. Appeasement might have sent the message to Hitler that the Allies were push-overs but Chamberlain did make it clear following the Munich Agreement that this was as far as they were willing to go. After this Hitler, quite wrongly listened to the advice of his foreign minister von Ribbentrop who said correctly that Britain would be unable to provide any meaningful support to Poland, but wrongly that they were unwilling to get into an actual war over it and that this war on paper that would exist after the invasion of Poland could be resolved quickly as the British did not want war.
To blame Britain for the war is too far in my estimations. Appeasement might have sent the message to Hitler that the Allies were push-overs but Chamberlain did make it clear following the Munich Agreement that this was as far as they were willing to go. After this Hitler, quite wrongly listened to the advice of his foreign minister von Ribbentrop who said correctly that Britain would be unable to provide any meaningful support to Poland, but wrongly that they were unwilling to get into an actual war over it and that this war on paper that would exist after the invasion of Poland could be resolved quickly as the British did not want war.
Original post by player19
Simple. World war II was caused by the Versailles treaty which gave Hitler many arguments to come to power and which also make the life o an average german citizen. The treaty recquired that Germany should pay vaste reparations to Uk and France although Germany was economically ruined. Now, imagine that UK has about 50% of population are living below the poverty line and the government instead of helping its own people gives about 60% of income to the EU. That was Germany in the 1920ies. In such state of chaos Hitler saw an oportunity and gain power.
Actually, it's commonly accepted by historians that Germany was capable of paying the reparations, and it was not unreasonable given the wanton destruction visited upon Belgium and France by the German occupation forces. In fact it was pretty normal at the time for the victors to impose reparations upon the defeated, and the simple fact was that in 1918 Germany had lost the war, but believed that it hadn't - the Right believed that it had been cheated of victory by democratic politicians who had overthrown the Kaiser and stabbed Germany in the back when it was on the verge of winning (this myth was encouraged by senior military figures such as Hindenburg to protect their own reputations and to shift the blame for Germany's defeat. Hindenburg for example conveniently forgot that he had been instrumental in encouraging the Kaiser to abdicate).
What mainly led Hitler to power was the economic effects of the Great Depression in the 1930s, and reparations had little/nothing to do with this.
The population of the Rhineland wanted to be part of Germany and it should never be taken away in first place. By the time when it was given back to Germany it was to late.
France occupied to Rhineland as a garantee that Germany would pay its reparations
France occupied to Rhineland as a garantee that Germany would pay its reparations
The Rhineland was still part of Germany, it was simply demilitarised to ensure France's security. Why would Germany need to station military forces there except to threaten France? The French occupation of the Rhineland had ended before Hitler even took power.
The French and the British i'd say although to be honest a lot of people share a part of it.
Mainly, from my understanding though, the French theyre the ones who were hell bent on destroying Germany utterly [closely followed by Britain] which led to the subsequent chain of events that let hitler rise to power and then again we all let germany have its way... allowing it to annex countries remiliterise the rhineland etc. all preventable but no.
The americans also, the new world power decided to go back into isolationism not join the LoN and we excluded Germany from it.... to be honest every country who was behind the ToV is to blame for it, let me put it in a nice violent metaphor;
Germany [after ww1] = little boy had his lunch money stolen and beaten up in the play ground
allies = the bullies
one day this little boy has a change of heart he decides to stand up to the bullies they back off a bit [as can happen with bullying] next thing you know this little boy has another change of heart and comes back to school with a shot gun and lets rip.... we are to blame in my opinion, not germany although all this being said it is far to simplistic to say this there are many more factors but in a very simple version that is my opinion on it.
Mainly, from my understanding though, the French theyre the ones who were hell bent on destroying Germany utterly [closely followed by Britain] which led to the subsequent chain of events that let hitler rise to power and then again we all let germany have its way... allowing it to annex countries remiliterise the rhineland etc. all preventable but no.
The americans also, the new world power decided to go back into isolationism not join the LoN and we excluded Germany from it.... to be honest every country who was behind the ToV is to blame for it, let me put it in a nice violent metaphor;
Germany [after ww1] = little boy had his lunch money stolen and beaten up in the play ground
allies = the bullies
one day this little boy has a change of heart he decides to stand up to the bullies they back off a bit [as can happen with bullying] next thing you know this little boy has another change of heart and comes back to school with a shot gun and lets rip.... we are to blame in my opinion, not germany although all this being said it is far to simplistic to say this there are many more factors but in a very simple version that is my opinion on it.
Original post by Clessus
The Rhineland was still part of Germany, it was simply demilitarised to ensure France's security. Why would Germany need to station military forces there except to threaten France? The French occupation of the Rhineland had ended before Hitler even took power.
The Rhineland was still part of Germany, it was simply demilitarised to ensure France's security. Why would Germany need to station military forces there except to threaten France? The French occupation of the Rhineland had ended before Hitler even took power.
Id assume to make sure france didnt do what it did a few years ago and invade...
also from my understanding it was more of a move to test the allies, if the french responded the germans would have immediately retreated but they didnt thus giving hitler more of a sense of infallibility.
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- Any primary sources that show nationalism was the main cause of the First World War?
- Will World War 3 happen soon?
- Edexcel IGCSE History | DEPTH STUDIES
- Remembrance Day . . . remembering what?
- History NEA coursework
- A level History NEA Coursework
- GCSE English Literature AIC
- mauufey v a-levels gyg 2024 🌺🍵
- Had the Ottoman Empire been Christian rather than Muslim
- how could anyone be pro-israel?
- History a level coursework
- A-level History Coursework Subjects
- [Official thread] Hamas-Israel Conflict
- Free IB History help
- Is the UK's future in peril?
- A level history coursework
- we're all going to die, soon
- AQA GCSE History Paper 1 (8145/1) - 18th May 2023 [Exam Chat]
- [Official Thread] Russian invasion of Ukraine
- GCSE Early Elizabethan England 16 marker Attempt
Latest
Trending
Last reply 1 day ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 1 day ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 1 day ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 1 day ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 1 day ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 1 day ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
