Who says WWII's roots can be traced back to the end of WWI?

[Sid Guttridge]

Hi Guys,

Surely the sub-titled premise of this section prejudges the case?

Most of the issues that helped cause WWII had deeper historical roots than 1919 and many of the more immediate causes were not contingent on the post-WWI settlement but on subsequent politics in various countries. Versailles is just one way point of many.

Cheers,

Sid.

[temujin77]

Well, we have to draw a line somewhere. Surely WW2 historians don't have the time to research the history of how the Franks and the Vandals treated each other during Roman times for their WW2 research. WW1 tends to be a common end point for most historians to stop tracing back the roots of WW2, though we know history is one continuous event.

[Jim O]

Originally Posted by Sid Guttridge

Hi Guys,

Surely the sub-titled premise of this section prejudges the case?

Most of the issues that helped cause WWII had deeper historical roots than 1919 and many of the more immediate causes were not contingent on the post-WWI settlement but on subsequent politics in various countries. Versailles is just one way point of many.

Cheers,

Sid.

Sid,

Welcome and thanks for provoking my thought process. As Pete said, history is continuous but events are discreet.

One can say (and I have said many times) that the events of the twentieth century in Europe were one long build up to war and war itself, with brief interludes of peace. The straw that broke the camel's back, so to speak in the first war was the assassination of the Archduke in Sarajevo but war was brewing before that. Ironically, the last of the battles of the century long war were those that have torn apart that very same region and nation.

I chose to "blame" Versailles as Germany was humiliated and bankrupted by it. Perhaps I should also have included the hodgepodge of other peace treaties between various nations and resulted in major loss of territory and honor not just for Germany but also for Austria-Hungary and the Russian Empire/USSR.

That an "epic war" might have ensued even if Germany had been treated "fairly" is a reasonable hypothesis, but that isn't what happened. It has been put forward also that Versailles was not harsh enough. That may also be true but is also conjecture. Maybe if Chamberlain had said "No" in 1938 there would have been no war, Versailles notwithstanding. Again, conjecture.

So feel free to put forward any alternate views (and suggestions as to how to more accurately title this forum are welcome). I think that we all would welcome the discussion.

[Sarge]

I think WW2 was directly borne out of Versailles. However, the blame for WW1 can be seen as a direct consequence of The German Empires desire to challenge the British at Sea.

Before the Germans decided to build a Navy that could challenge the Royal Navy in the North Sea relations between the two states were extremely amicable. Indeed the Royal families of both were intermixed. The British regarded the Germans as fellow entrepenuers and people.

However the minute that Germany started to encroach on the one thing that held the british Empire together (Sea Power). Relationships turned sour. Britian was forced into an alliance that she had never needed for hundreds of years, with France and its old enemy Russia.

If Britian had stayed neutral in WW1, it would never have become a World War and more than likely France and Russia would have been defeated with results similar to the Franco-Prussian war just 4 decades earlier. Without Britian therefore the war would have ended much sooner and the US would never have become involved as the Germans wouldnt have been sinking ships off the coast of Ireland and in the Atlantic.

It follows then that there would have been no Versailles and no Hitler and no WW2.

Thats for another What If though.................

In sum, Germany challenging Britian on the Sea = WW1.

[Ingsoc]

The roots of WW2 (as well as WW1) are in the 19th century Germany, at the time most Germans felt that they didn't have there right place among the great empires, a place that fit for such a great nation and so on. in fact I think that even if the Versailles treaty was less harsh of Germany, they would still be dissapointed and want revenge as they expected to come out of the war as a great empire.

[Helmut Von Moltke]

There are too many factors, some small and some large. Depends on a person's historical viewpoint, really.

K

[Sid Guttridge]

Hi Temujin,

History is not about arbitrary cut-off lines.

The presumption of the phrasing in the title seems to be that the Treaty of Versailles was the origin of WWII. Surely that is for the posters to debate, not for the administrators to steer them towards Hitler's particular take on the issue?

Cheers,

Sid.

[Egorka]

Hello,

Here is my oppinion. The outcome of WW1 was probably one of the most important reasons.

But the ground on which all this started to florish , IMHO, is the almost eternal press of the western civilisation to the East. East direction and partucalary Russia represented a hostile world for Western civilisation since hundreds of years ago.

This is shortly. Just to tickle your brain buts. :-)

Regards
Igor Korenev

[Noel]

Treaty Versailles was very harsh, to bankrupt a country and its people is immoral. To take land away from the Germans was harsh to split the counrty was wrong if we all take a good hard look at history France,Russia and England have a lot to answer for

[Wolster]

Originally Posted by Noel

Treaty Versailles was very harsh, to bankrupt a country and its people is immoral. To take land away from the Germans was harsh to split the counrty was wrong if we all take a good hard look at history France,Russia and England have a lot to answer for

Surley Hitlers disire to have 'living room' in western Russia has something to do with it. Maybe we really look at this a little to deep. The Versailles treaty was harsh. A resurgent Germany with a strong dictator was a result of that. Prussia was given to Poland and Alcase (SP?) and Lorraine wer given to France. The Ruhr was controlled. Hit