What was the WW2 (Europe) about?

[Graham Boak]

That there weres many struggles, with many threads intertwined, in the context of WW2 is undeniably true. But with in the context of a thread on Jewish aviators, then the core matter was the struggle against Nazism.

[Ruy Horta]

Germany threatened the balance of power within Europe, essentially the Anglo-French status quo. Seen from that angle, WW2 differed little from WW1 or even Franco-Prussian War.

Although some may find this ridiculous, I find sufficient proof in post war cooperation between France and Germany as the final shift of balance.

Of course it is ironic that Germany was accused of wanting world domination by what were essentially nations which had built (or conquered) their own empire in the preceding century or two.

(you can see that same irony in the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which is another means to maintain a status quo - and only mentioned if it comes in handy and easily forgotten when not)

Sometimes I wonder if a German victory in WW1 (likely if Britain had not entered the continental war) or at least a stalemate (likely if the US had not entered a European war) would not have brought a better balance of power in Europe at a lower cost in human lives and without the huge financial shift towards the new world.

I do not believe that ideology plays much of a role when nations clash, that's more the domain of the propagandists, but it does look better in history books instead of the more pragmatic reasoning. Of course ideology does play a role in how a nation wages war, but that is something different.

If I remember correctly Ferguson in the pity of war illustrated nicely the situation of the late 19th century where basically Britain, France, Russia and finally upcoming Germany start playing a game of chess. In the end, Germany is the weakest and easiest foe to face, since any other combination would lead to less attractive (and I dare add profitable) struggles.

Some may call me a cynic, but although some details may change, history has a nasty way of repeating itself, not surprising since man is essentially the same.

[edwest]

Ruy,


Man is essentially the same. People have "new" technology and some people can live longer and healthier. From ancient days, countries wanted to expand and build empires. Then there is the national pride and identity: "We want to keep our language, our culture, etc." and no one can tell us what to do. This includes the idea of your particular country being the "best." Hitler told the German people much of this. The Japanese emporer was considered a god. Often, the "enemy" is portrayed as less than human, and other races and peoples as only good for slaves or death. It is very, very sad, but obviously, war is just considered diplomacy by other means. In America, long ago, a Mexican revolutionary who had invaded the country sent a message back to his commanders: "Send guns, money and lawyers." Sad, very sad.



Ed West

[John Beaman]

Let's see Ed: the guns were for the "revolution", and the money was for the lawyers, right? Was it Voltaire that said, "The more things change, the more they are the same"?

[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.