What was the WW2 (Europe) about?

[Kari Lumppio]

Hello!

I first meant to reply on the Jewish pilot thread but the subject deserves own thread, I think.

It's written about the WWII in the mentioned thread, I quote:
"the entire struggle was about the Nazi ideology"

As far it concerns Finland, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, no the struggle was not about Nazi ideology. The struggle was between the two big ones Germany and Soviet Union. Because of mainly geographic (historical too) reasons the mentioned countries were drawn into this "struggle" wheter they wanted or not. Neutrality was not an option here.

I strongly doubt that ideology - any - was the reason for WW2. My opinion - based what I have learnt in my life up to this point - is that the struggle for political and economical hegemony in Europe (and world) was the main reason for WW2. The ideologies followed behind.

And about the good and bad guys. The Western Europe does have the luxury to think WW2 as battle of ideologies but for Eastern Europe WW2 was the choice between Germany and Soviet Union. This included also the choice if you wanted to keep your private property or not. There arises the uncertainity of who was the good and who was the bad (UK, France, USA etc. are excluded in this equation!). Answers to this are not simple and to the equation becomes what was one's nationality, citizenship, mother language, wealthiness, religion etc. etc.

I think it is too much to demand everybody would have had to fight against Germany - or nazism as many want to simplify it (erroneously IMO). Every nation should have right to fight for it's own rights without outsider OverHumans telling what to do.

Remember also that in a sense WW2 did not end for Eastern Europe before 1991! Western Europe (Finland included) has had 50 years headstart in this.

Huh, I hope no-one takes my words too personally. I just had to vent this out of my system.


Regards,
Kari

[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.