What was the WW2 (Europe) about?

[Jim Oxley]

Volumes have been written on the origins of WWII, by a multitude of authors ranging from popular writers to politicians to historians to the most learned of men. And the reasons for the War are as varied as the number of books on the subject.

So to venture an opinion here, in just a few words, is all but impossible. But one can offer a pespective on the War.

From a national leaders (western) point of view the War was about control and power, and to a degre maintaining (or breaking) the status quo. In the East (again at a leader level) it was as much a war of Ideological thought as it was about conquest or survival.

For the poor fellow caught up in the war it was a battle of good over evil, defence of the Fatherland, Motherland, your loved ones, whatever. And it didn't matter which side you were fighting on - all thought they were in the right.

[Laurent Rizzotti]

I agree that most people were victims or unwilling actors of WWII but this is probably the war where the most people engaged for political or ideogical reasons. In most of Europe, at least a part of the right wing allied with Germans to fight the left wing forces. Another part of the right (the most nationalist and anti-German) went in exile or allied with the left more or less temporary. The civil Resistance movements were often politically oriented. At least for the non-German/Italian fascists and the non-Soviet communists, ideology was usually more important than national interests.

In Asia/Pacific, the political main subject was colonism. Britain, Netherlands and France tried to hold their territories, Japan to build an empire and USA and the Asian elits to liberate countries. In China, the struggle between communits and nationalists was more important than the fight against Japan for both leaders.

[George Hopp]

Personally, I think this site should institute a "Politics" section for threads like this.

But, to play the game. If we backdated the "Bush doctrine of 2002" to 1939, it would give Germany every right to attack, and "subdue" Poland, because Poland had WMDs that threatened Germany, and that could have been launched within 45 minutes. And, carrying this to its ridiculous conclusion, the UK and France were actually guilty of joining the Polish "terrorists" by declaring war on Germany, and should have been destroyed instead of Germany, which was simply defending itself.

[G. Warrener]

Hello

In respect of European attitudes, I suppose the 2nd War was a result of:

- German inability to accept the results of the Versailles Treaty

- French & British doing nothing beyond passive reaction - throughout the thirties - when faced with increasing 'agitations' from Fascist dictatorships,

- French & British inability to guarantee any safety for nations (re)created after WW2, such as Poland, Czechoslovakia

- Complete misjudgement of the capabilities and intentions of the Soviet Union. The result of Polish/Soviet war at the end of WW1 - could have been the basis for a stronger European front against the Soviets.
But the Facsist Germans failed to recognize Poland as a bulwark.

- Adolf Hitler "wanted" to go to war. That was always his intention. He was the dynamic force

*****

Graham

[Primoz]

You've forgotten one important thing: the great depression; this economic crisis shattered the whole system in many countries, especially those that suffered as a result of WW1. Without it there would have been no Nazi rule in Germany, no hardcore stalinism in Russia (I mean purges etc.) and no austrofacsism in Austria ... (and no WW2).

[G. Warrener]

Originally Posted by Primoz

You've forgotten one important thing: the great depression; this economic crisis shattered the whole system in many countries, especially those that suffered as a result of WW1. Without it there would have been no Nazi rule in Germany, no hardcore stalinism in Russia (I mean purges etc.) and no austrofacsism in Austria ... (and no WW2).

Whilst accepting that the depression 'encouraged' Fascism - I would like to know what 'austrofascism" was - and if it was a major influence on political/military developments between 1918 & 1939

Parallels between the 30s and the present day are hard to draw - but there will always be people who feel that killing other people will change the world for the better (in their view). Faced with such people - others will assume that killing them will make the world safer.

Every morning the day dawns - and offers all a fresh start ..... an opportunity which is largely ignored, daily....

Graham

[Ruy Horta]

Originally Posted by George Hopp

Personally, I think this site should institute a "Politics" section for threads like this.

The Second World War in General sort of covers politics as well as any other subject having to do with the war, from art to food to sexuality. If you mean a section on modern politics, I am very cautious.

The risk of major dissent is to great. Political debate can easily create animosity between friends.

Even when discussing wars of the past, even when taking an academic approach one risks to stand accused of having the wrong sympathies.

I've learned (through hardship) to give modern analogies a wide berth when discussing historical events, although I am a strong believer in history as presenting a model for the present (and the present to help explain the past).

Sorry if I stopped making any sense!