Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why 1866 Set the Stage for Two World Wars

angrystaffofficer.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

211–220 of 221 posts

Re: Why 1866 Set the Stage for Two World Wars

#211

Post by 67726e »

yazan94 wrote: post #16
67726e wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How about refute the core of the work instead of focusing on a small issue?

The core of the work is claiming that the reunification of Germany and the Franco-Prussian war along with the US civil rights movement post Civil War set the stage for World War 1. The first point is not novel nor unbelievable. I find that the second point is far fetched, and the author doesn't really support this argument in article.

Which is fine, but that's not what the comment was talking about.

Re: Why 1866 Set the Stage for Two World Wars

#212

Post by Clubber »

vacri wrote: post #207
Clubber wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isolationism doesn't mean never projecting military power, it means not getting involved in alliances that don't serve, or barely serve our own interests. George Washington's farewell address addressed this: "The great rule of conduct for us, in regard to foreign nations, is in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible. Europe has a set of primary interests, whic…

Your definition of isolationism makes no sense. The alliances that France had with the UK and Russia at the start of WWI served France's own interests, for example, yet France wouldn't be painted as isolationist. Countries make alliances that serve their own interest - how often do you see countries making alliances for net loss? And despite you quoting several people including terms like "forbearing at all times, an…

We'll just have to agree to disagree.

Re: Why 1866 Set the Stage for Two World Wars

#213

Post by nickik »

jcranmer wrote: post #203
nickik wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I strongly take issue with the idea that peace treaty of WW1 caused WW2. The treaty wwas dead in the water before Hitler ever came to power. WW2 happend because a fascist party managed to gain power after the greatest economic crisis in german history. This is somewhat related to WW1 and the Peace Treaty but saying the Peace Treaty is the reason is not substainable.

> I strongly take issue with the idea that peace treaty of WW1 caused WW2. The treaty wwas dead in the water before Hitler ever came to power. Hitler's prestige within Germany was strongly bolstered by his ability to unwind provisions of the Versailles treaty. For example, the remilitarization of the Rhine valley (demilitarized by Versailles), the annexation of Austria (forbidden by Versailles), or the reestablishmen…

The problem is that by the time Hitler did this stuff the Treaty was already full of holes, totally defunct, and France already had to garantie not to take the same kind of military action again.

So yes, it is true that it gave Hitler prestige put Hitler had already a lot of control of the state and was already preparing for war at that time.

The war happened because Hilter and co wanted war. Hilter came to power because of a economic crisis. The rest is just Hitler gambling again and again, not the root cause.

Re: Why 1866 Set the Stage for Two World Wars

#214

Post by dragonwriter »

nickik wrote: post #190
jcranmer wrote: post #94

When talking about the world wars, it's fairly obvious that WWII occurred as a result of the consequences of the WWI peace treaty. So the question about what caused both world wars is really a question of what caused WWI. I happen to have been going back through this history recently, so it's well been on my mind. There are many putative causes for WWI. Wilson, for example, favored the idea that secret treaties was w…

I strongly take issue with the idea that peace treaty of WW1 caused WW2. The treaty wwas dead in the water before Hitler ever came to power. WW2 happend because a fascist party managed to gain power after the greatest economic crisis in german history. This is somewhat related to WW1 and the Peace Treaty but saying the Peace Treaty is the reason is not substainable.

> I strongly take issue with the idea that peace treaty of WW1 caused WW2. The treaty wwas dead in the water before Hitler ever came to power.

The treaty directly led to the economic crisis which led to Hitler coming to power; even if the treaty was dead by then, it's work in setting the stage for WWII was done.

Re: Why 1866 Set the Stage for Two World Wars

#215

Post by nickik »

m_developer wrote: post #200
nickik wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I strongly take issue with the idea that peace treaty of WW1 caused WW2. The treaty wwas dead in the water before Hitler ever came to power. WW2 happend because a fascist party managed to gain power after the greatest economic crisis in german history. This is somewhat related to WW1 and the Peace Treaty but saying the Peace Treaty is the reason is not substainable.

But wasn't that economic crisis in a large part caused by the reparations Germany had to pay, as specified in the peace treaty?

No not really. If anything one could argue that Germany was not willing to devaluate because it would increase debt. However it would have still been smart to do.

Both the hyperinflation and the great depression did not happen because of war payments, maybe one could argue the german political class did stupid things because of the treaty.

Re: Why 1866 Set the Stage for Two World Wars

#216

Post by cynusx »

nickik wrote: post #194
cynusx wrote: post #65

The need for Germany to secure their left flank to avoid a two-front war and France's realization that it has nothing to gain from war with Germany also led to the creation of the European union in response. The idea was to deeply intertwine their economies so neither nation would benefit from war with each other. As for the US, their only objective is to prevent the rise of a dominant european power that can compete…

Your explanation of US action fails the reality test. There is no evidence that the US acted to prevent a dominant power in Europe. They joined the war because Germany acted in a way that made it almost impossible for them not too.

Bear in mind that germany declared war on the US in december 1941 and the US took some time to mobilize, it was only in 1943 the US agreed to cross the channel and open a second front in may 1944.

This decision was made after the battle of stalingrad and battle of kursk which destroyed the German army ability to mount major offensives and when the soviets liberated half of ukraine. If they wouldn't have done this then the russians would still have captured Berlin in 1945 and there would be nobody to stop them from 'liberating' the whole of europe.

This second front wasn't needed, Germany was losing the war already. It was needed though to prevent the russians from occupying the rest of europe.

The combined state would be geographically secure, resource independent and demographically superior to the US.

Re: Why 1866 Set the Stage for Two World Wars

#217

Post by cynusx »

sgt101 wrote: post #79
cynusx wrote: post #65

The need for Germany to secure their left flank to avoid a two-front war and France's realization that it has nothing to gain from war with Germany also led to the creation of the European union in response. The idea was to deeply intertwine their economies so neither nation would benefit from war with each other. As for the US, their only objective is to prevent the rise of a dominant european power that can compete…

Nit pick alert ! The EU was created in response to the opportunity that the fall of the Soviets provided - to bind in and develop the economies of eastern europe. The binding of France to Germany was achieved with the European Economic Community, the removal of German military infrastructure and the comprehensive occupation of Germany by the UK, France, USSR and USA. I don't see the USA as invested in preventing the…

US decided only to commit to D-day when the soviets were gaining ground on the Germans. In fact by the time they made the decision to do that, the soviets had already liberated half of ukraine. 4 months after the decision, the soviets had liberated the whole of ukraine.

The soviets war machine steamrolled the rest of Germany and only US forces would be able to stop them from occupying the whole of europe.

Re: Why 1866 Set the Stage for Two World Wars

#218

Post by PerfectDlite »

Clubber wrote: post #96
vacri wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the US's involvement was because of 'defend the rights of man', it sure took it's time getting properly involved. It doesn't even really make sense, because it's not like the Germans were going to enslave the French if they won.

During WWI and WWII, the US made a fortune selling armaments to the allies and then joining the war towards the end. In WWII we claimed an equal share of the spoils, at least in Europe. England, France, US and the USSR split the spoils of WWII but the USSR definitely deserved 3/4 of it for their sacrifice. I always akin it to tag team wrestling. The first guy beats the other team almost silly, then tags out and the f…

> USSR definitely deserved 3/4 of it for their sacrifice

If only USSR didn't enter WW2 on Hitler's side...

Re: Why 1866 Set the Stage for Two World Wars

#219

Post by nickik »

cynusx wrote: post #216
nickik wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your explanation of US action fails the reality test. There is no evidence that the US acted to prevent a dominant power in Europe. They joined the war because Germany acted in a way that made it almost impossible for them not too.

Bear in mind that germany declared war on the US in december 1941 and the US took some time to mobilize, it was only in 1943 the US agreed to cross the channel and open a second front in may 1944. This decision was made after the battle of stalingrad and battle of kursk which destroyed the German army ability to mount major offensives and when the soviets liberated half of ukraine. If they wouldn't have done this the…

I was talking about WW1. Wilson acted again the allies when he restricted financial transactions with them. The germans forced his hand with the Zimmermann telegram and unrestricted submarine warefare.

About WW2 I would say that the US wanted to invade Europe earlier but the Brits did not agree. Also it was completly impossible to do it earlier and that why the Brits didnt agree.

If it was all about stopping the Soviets, why would they give them that many weapons. The Soviets would have taken years longer without the blockade of Germany and Land-Lease.

Re: Why 1866 Set the Stage for Two World Wars

#220

Post by cynusx »

nickik wrote: post #219
cynusx wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bear in mind that germany declared war on the US in december 1941 and the US took some time to mobilize, it was only in 1943 the US agreed to cross the channel and open a second front in may 1944. This decision was made after the battle of stalingrad and battle of kursk which destroyed the German army ability to mount major offensives and when the soviets liberated half of ukraine. If they wouldn't have done this the…

I was talking about WW1. Wilson acted again the allies when he restricted financial transactions with them. The germans forced his hand with the Zimmermann telegram and unrestricted submarine warefare. About WW2 I would say that the US wanted to invade Europe earlier but the Brits did not agree. Also it was completly impossible to do it earlier and that why the Brits didnt agree. If it was all about stopping the Sovi…

In WWI the US finally intervened as Germany pursued unrestricted submarine warfare, directly ignoring US wishes. However, the US also realized that continental europe ignoring US wishes would be the default regardless of which party won. If Berlin won then the combined nation would be able to gain domination of the seas and therefore global trade. If the allied won, then they would have excluded america from world trade to rebuild their economies.

As for WWII, the US could have focussed on Japan but instead they had a Europe First strategy which involved denying nazi germany european hegemony. However, by the time they actually decided to invade it was clear Germany was already defeated by the soviets and it was a matter of time.

Post reply on HN