[Political Interest]

I want to test myself and see if I am able to quanitfy and process information. Do I really understand world history? Do I really understand anything? The following will be my narrative of the events that led to WWII. Please critique it to your heart's content.

1920s - Germany is in a terrible state. The centrist governments have failed to provide a stable and viable path for the German people. Corruption is rampant and inflation is out of control. Unemployment is massive and people are suffering. The country has lost territory and was humiliatd by the West after the end of WWI. Misery prevails everywhere except among a few wealthy pockets. The terrible conditions and failure of democratic politics provides a vacuum for political extremists of both the left and right.

1930s - In 1933 the Nazis find their way into power through collusion, violence and election manipulation. They have significant support among the population but it is not total. As far right nationalists they begin to enact their plan to make Germany into a strong power and the leader of Europe. They want to avenge the humiliation of WWI, regain the lost territories and improve the living standards of the German people. In violation of the Treaty of Versailles they begin to restore the armed forces. Throughout this decade the West are terrified of the new Germany and do not know how to respond to it. Most want to avoid another war but fear it may be inevitable. Meanwhile the Italians and Japanese begin to expand their empires with the invasions of Ethiopia and Manchuria. Mutual isolation from the democratic and liberal powers of the West causes Japan, Germany and Italy to close ranks.

A series of annexations by Germany throughout the 1930s raises tensions to extreme levels. First Austira, then Czechoslovakia and finally Poland. In 1939 with the invasion of Poland the West cannot turn its head away from Germany any longer leading France and the UK to declare war.

[Rich]

They want to avenge the humiliation of WWI, regain the lost territories and improve the living standards of the German people..

The Nazis slashed German living standards in order to pur money into a German military build up. Unemployment was on course to fall rapidly when Hitler took power. The Nazi Jobs programme, which was an expansion of the previous governments programme was grossly exaggerated. The Nazis insistence on not devaluing the official exchange rate caused inefficiencies and required an expensive bureaucracy, although it prepared the economy for its isolation from the world market in WWII.

[Zamuel]

Your narrative seems inclusive of the major elements and is both lucid and brief ... I'd give it an B+ , I do have one issue.

Throughout this decade the West are terrified of the new Germany and do not know how to respond to it. Most want to avoid another war but fear it may be inevitable.

I think terrified is not the right word here. There was a lot of admiration and support for National Socialism around the world. Many overlooked or discounted the military build up and didn't really expect war ... The territorial issues were not new and, until Poland, were resolved diplomatically. The Polish issue was simply an excuse to open up the line of attack on the Soviets ... Your narrative fails to acknowledge the Basic rational for the development and institution of national socialism, which was to attack and destroy communism.

Zam

[Potemkin]

The territorial issues were not new and, until Poland, were resolved diplomatically. The Polish issue was simply an excuse to open up the line of attack on the Soviets ... Your narrative fails to acknowledge the Basic rational for the development and institution of national socialism, which was to attack and destroy communism.

I have to disagree with this. Firstly, the territorial disputes (for which Germany actually had some justification) were resolved diplomatically until Hitler's invasion of Czechoslovakia, which occurred before the crisis over Poland. The invasion of Czechoslovakia was the turning point. And invading Poland was not merely motivated by the desire to open the line of attack to the Soviet Union (though that was undoubtedly a factor) - the Nazis had designs on Polish territory, and the invasion of Poland was a blatant land grab. And National Socialism's raison d'etre as an ideology and as a state actor was not merely to attack and destroy Communism, but to gain Germany its "place in the Sun", chiefly at the expense of the British Empire and Russia. It was a revanchist ideology, not merely a reactionary one.

[ThirdTerm]

Britain entered into a defence pact with Poland by the Anglo-Polish Agreement in 1939, which was the direct cause of the Second World War. The Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact divided Poland between the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany but Britain was unaware of the secret protocol of the non-aggression pact signed between Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union because of an intelligence failure. The war could have been avoided, if the West had acquiesced on the partition of Poland, which had been repeated a couple of times between the Russian Empire, the Kingdom of Prussia and Habsburg Austria. Poland was clearly outside Britain's sphere of influence and the German invasion of Poland was merely a part of the planned partition.

Secret Additional Protocol.

Article I. In the event of a territorial and political rearrangement in the areas belonging to the Baltic States (Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania), the northern boundary of Lithuania shall represent the boundary of the spheres of influence of Germany and U.S.S.R. In this connection the interest of Lithuania in the Vilna area is recognized by each party.

Article II. In the event of a territorial and political rearrangement of the areas belonging to the Polish state, the spheres of influence of Germany and the U.S.S.R. shall be bounded approximately by the line of the rivers Narev, Vistula and San.

The question of whether the interests of both parties make desirable the maintenance of an independent Polish States and how such a state should be bounded can only be definitely determined in the course of further political developments.

In any event both Governments will resolve this question by means of a friendly agreement.

Article III. With regard to Southeastern Europe attention is called by the Soviet side to its interest in Bessarabia. The German side declares its complete political disinteredness in these areas.

Article IV. This protocol shall be treated by both parties as strictly secret.

Moscow, August 23, 1939.

For the Government of the German Reich v. Ribbentrop

Plenipotentiary of the Government of the U.S.S.R. V. Molotov

[Heinie]

There are too many inaccuracies in the opening post to be able to address them all properly. It is a falsification of history to pretend that Austria was annexed by Germany as the Anschluß was universally popular among the Austrian people. The same could be said about the ethnic Germans of Sudetenland. England and France did not have to pretend they cared about Poland; As soon as the war was over, they allowed the Russians to occupy Poland for decades without a peep from them.

[Potemkin]

There are too many inaccuracies in the opening post to be able to address them all properly. It is a falsification of history to pretend that Austria was annexed by Germany as the Anschluß was universally popular among the Austrian people. The same could be said about the ethnic Germans of Sudetenland.

As I said, Germany had some justification for its territorial disputes - the policy of "appeasement" during the 1930s was actually not as venal or cowardly as it tends to be portrayed nowadays. It was, in fact, a perfectly reasonable diplomatic approach; it failed because Hitler got too greedy and started disregarding the agreements he had signed. The invasion of Czechoslovakia was the turning point; after that, both Britain and France refused to enter into any more negotiations with Hitler.

England and France did not have to pretend they cared about Poland; As soon as the war was over, they allowed the Russians to occupy Poland for decades without a peep from them.

Anyone who thinks that the Second World War was fought solely to ensure the freedom and territorial integrity of Poland has probably been huffing too much paint thinner.

[Heinie]

...
Anyone who thinks that the Second World War was fought solely to ensure the freedom and territorial integrity of Poland has probably been huffing too much paint thinner.

I agree, only a dope would agree with the official English line that they declared war on Germany because the Third Reich invaded Poland.

[pugsville]

1920s - Germany is in a terrible state. The centrist governments have failed to provide a stable and viable path for the German people. Corruption is rampant and inflation is out of control. Unemployment is massive and people are suffering. The country has lost territory and was humiliatd by the West after the end of WWI. Misery prevails everywhere except among a few wealthy pockets. The terrible conditions and failure of democratic politics provides a vacuum for political extremists of both the left and right.

not a good description of the 1920s there are two economic problems the early 20's hyperinflation caused by internal german economic policies and the late 1929/1930 great crash unemployment problems were the us loans got turned off over night. "Misery prevails everywhere" is not true at all.

[Rich]

The war could have been avoided, if the West had acquiesced on the partition of Poland,

Absolute and total nonsense!

If we can nail down one thing about World War II lets nail down this. Hitler spent four years in the trenches on the Western front. No way ever was he going to accept France keeping Alsace Lorraine. No way ever. Actually if there was one place Hitler was negotiable on it was Poland. Hitler was an Austrian who had fought on the western front. If the Poles had been more pliant maybe a sustainable peace deal could have been negotiated, but he was only ever going to use his Polish acquisitions, as resources for war against France.

So yeah try persuading France to give up Alsace Lorraine peacefully, see how that worked out. France would have fought Germany alone to keep Alsace Lorraine and for Britain to stand aside and let Germany crush France would have been geopolitical cretinism on a historical scale. It was blatantly obvious that if Britain allowed France's empire to be dismantled whether by Germany, America, the Soviet union or who ever, Britain with its small metropolitan population's empire would be next.

[MartinLutherCzar]

I don't get it why Denmark was such a weak country?

"The occupation of Denmark had cost Hitler only twenty casualties." Source: http://www.genuinehistory.com/the-germa ... pril-1940/

It's ridiculous... there was no men in Denmark in the 40s?

[Suntzu]

No, there were three. Japan attacked Pearl Harbor because the U.S. cut off their oil.

[Zamuel]

No, there were three. Japan attacked Pearl Harbor because the U.S. cut off their oil.

Please note, America did not "Cut off" Japan's oil. We stopped selling to them but they had many other sources and were not "hurt" by the loss of American supply … Once the war began, American submarines spent 3 years sinking every tanker they could find, and eventually got almost all of them. The Japanese oil supply only dried up then, after Japanese fleets were bottled up anyway by the lack of carriers to protect them.

Japan knew it must fight America for the pacific. The Pearl Harbor attack was motivated by two things. Ambitious Japanese Admirals who were tired of sitting on the hands while the ARMY reaped all the glory. -and- The German need to divert the US from supporting the English. Put those two things together and you get Pearl Harbor.

Zam